Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can you, Sir, give me the reason why certain names are not attached to the Motion for the rejection of the Bill? Last night, about 7.30, I handed in a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, with about eight names attached, and only one of those names is on the Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: Six names appear on the Paper, and only six are allowed.
Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

London County Council (Money) Bill. Bill to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Oyster and Mussel Fishery (Seasalter and Ham) Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

West Bromwich Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Greenock Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Great Western Railway (Swansea Harbour Vesting) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Provisional Order (Marriages) Act, 1905," presented by Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTAL AND INLAND WATER-WAY EROSION.

Mr. HANCOCK: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government is taking to deal with coastal and inland water-way erosion?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): So far as Government Departments possess powers which enable them to exercise some control in the interests of coast defence against erosion, those powers will continue to be exercised, but there is no prospect of the Government being able to undertake any new financial responsibility in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SUGAR REFINING.

Mr. HANCOCK: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the names of all the sugar refining firms in Great Britain?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am unable to furnish a complete list of all sugar refiners in Great Britain, but am sending the hon. Member a list of the firms which carry on the business of sugar refining in bonded premises under the supervision of the Department of Customs and Excise.

Mr. HANCOCK: Will the list appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Yes.

Following is the list:

Messrs. Martineau's, Limited; Tate and Lyle, Limited; W. E. Criddle and Sons, Limited; Fairrie and Company, Limited; Macfie and Sons, Limited; Sankey Sugar Company; The Glebe Sugar Refining Company, Limited; Neill, Dempster and Neill; Orchard Sugar Refining Company; John Walker and Company; The West-burn Sugar Refineries, Limited.

COTTON EXPORTS.

Mr. HANCOCK: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the total weight or value of cotton manufactures exported for the year 1922, and say how that compares with the export of previous year?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The total values of cotton manufactures produced in the United Kingdom and exported in the years 1921 and 1922, were as follow:



1921.
1922.



£
£


Cotton yarn
23,925,000
26,437,000


Other cotton manufactures
154,740,000
160,446,000


Total
178,665,000
186,883,000


In comparing the values for the two years, it should not be overlooked that average prices of goods in this Group were somewhat more than 25 per cent. lower in 1922 than in 1921, according to calculations made by my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT (PART II. ORDERS).

Mr. TUBBS: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of trades that now come within the Safeguarding
of Industries Act, Part II, and the number of hands employed in these trades?

Viscount WOLMER: The number of industries affected by Orders made under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act is seven. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position to give an exact figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES (COSTS AND PROFITS).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether having regard to the recommendations of the interim Report of the Committee on Distribution and Prices of Agricultural Produce with reference to the United Dairies Company, he is now prepared to introduce legislation to require all companies to file at Somerset House, and publish with their annual balance-sheets, returns giving full information with regard to costs and profits?

Viscount WOLMER: I am not prepared to introduce legislation on lines suggested by the hon. Member at present. The matter is under consideration.

Mr. WHITE: Will that consideration apply to all trusts, especially to the Light Castings Association?

Viscount WOLMER: I think that that hardly arises out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (TRADE FACILITIES ACT SCHEMES).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure that in all schemes guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act preference in employment shall be given to ex-service men?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reading on the 18th April last, a copy of which I am sending him.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CONTRACTS (SETTLEMENT).

Colonel NEWMAN: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether all outstanding accounts between Government
Departments and armament shipbuilding and other firms for work done in the War have been settled; if not, with what firms are accounts still outstanding; and what is the total amount of public money involved?

Major BOYD - CARPENTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It is not desirable to give the information asked for in the second and third parts.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.S. "ISTAR" AND "AVONTOWN."

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 9 and 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the British steamer "Istar" cleared from the Clyde on 25th December last; what cargo she was then carrying; on what date she cleared from the Bermudas for Nassau, Bahamas; whether she arrived at Nassau; if not, whether he can give any information as to the present whereabouts of the vessel;
(2) whether the British steamship "Avontown" cleared from the Clyde on the 13th January last for St. Pierre Miquelon; on what date she arrived at that port; whether he can give any information of her subsequent movements; and what cargo she was carrying when she left Scotland?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The s.s. "Istar" cleared from Glasgow on 29th December last with a cargo of spirits for Nassau. She subsequently put into Falmouth, whence she sailed on 11th January. The s.s. "Avontown" cleared from Glasgow on the 13th January last with a mixed cargo for St. Pierre Miquelon. I am unable to give any information as to the movements of these vessels since their departure from this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the Report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee on the subject of life-saving appliances; and, if so, what action it is proposed to take in the matter?

Viscount WOLMER: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the Report
of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee on life-saving appliances, and is prepared to adopt it in principle. Steps will be taken to make the necessary alterations in the statutory rules, which will be laid before Parliament in due course. The Department will give the Advisory Committee an opportunity of seeing the draft rules before they are laid on the Table, and will communicate further with the Committee about certain of their recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BRITISH TRADE).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement showing what trade has been carried on with Russia during the last six months; and in what commodities the greater part of the business has been done?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The imports into the United Kingdom, consigned from Russia, registered during the six months ended 31st March, 1923, were valued at £5,886,000. The exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures during the same period consigned to Russia were valued at £1,570,000 and the re-exports of foreign and colonial merchandise to £575,000. Details of the various commodities are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME GROWN SUGAR, LIMITED.

14. Mr. BARNES: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will submit a return to the House showing the original value of the shares held by the State in British Home Grown Sugar, Limited, the value of the shares to-day; the total production of sugar produced and sold by the company since its formation; and the amount of revenue sacrificed by the Treasury through the subsidy granted to the company in the form of the remission of the sugar duty?

Major BARNSTON (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. On the formation of Home Grown Sugar, Limited, the Government subscribed for 250,000 £1 shares. The value of these shares has now been written down by special resolution of the company to 5s. The nominal value of the Government's shares to-day is, therefore, £62,500, a
corresponding reduction having been made in the value of the shares held by the public. During the 1921 season—the only season during which the Kelham factory has operated—2,063 tons of white sugar were produced. The Kelham factory has not operated since the Government decided last year to remit the Excise Duty on sugar produced from home grown beet, so that the last part of the question does not arise.

Mr. BARNES: Is the Cantley factory also involved with these figures, or could the Board of Trade give the output from that factory?

Major BARNSTON: I could not say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MEDICAL AND VETERINARY CORPS (LIEUTENANT-COLONELS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing the slowness of promotion now existing, he will explain why lieutenant-colonels of the Royal Army Medical Corps and the Royal Army Veterinary Corps are not obliged to retire after four years' service in that rank, as is the case in the infantry, artillery and other branches of the Army?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): No fair comparison can be made with the combatant branches, where conditions are different. The combatant officers in question are not retired, and the fact that they go to half-pay does not deprive them as a class of adequate opportunities of further employment. No opportunities on a similar scale would be available for the Departmental branches.

RECRUITING.

Sir W. de FRECE: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the total number of recruits for the cavalry, infantry and artillery during the last six months; whether the recruiting is satisfactory for all branches of the Service; and, if not, what steps are being taken to remedy this?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The total number of recruits raised in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the cavalry, infantry and artillery, during the
six months ending 31st March, 1923, was as follows:


Household Cavalry
…
64


Cavalry of the Line
…
548


Infantry of the Line
…
14,520


Foot Guards
…
1,201


Royal Regiment of Artillery
…
1,338


Recruiting is satisfactory for all branches of the Service.

RHINE ARMY (PAYMENT IN MARKS).

Major - General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardships to the soldiers of the Rhine Army, due to their being paid in marks instead of sterling, and in view of the difficulty of paying these men in sterling Treasury notes, he will instruct the War Office to pay these soldiers at their option in sterling vouchers of suitable amount, which can be used to pay for sterling purchases at the Army canteen, thereby avoiding loss to the soldiers, to the British Government, or to the canteen?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The hon. and gallant Member's scheme would involve considerable loss to the taxpayer. I think the power recently given to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief to pay the troops and fix the official rates twice a week, whenever he considers it desirable, is amply sufficient to prevent hardships to the soldiers.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment of the House, on a suitable occasion.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

GENERAL REGISTER OF SASINES.

Mr. WEIR: 22.
asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he is aware that the recording of a simple transfer of a cottage in the General Register of Sasines in Edinburgh involves a delay of four or five months and of the great inconvenience thereby occasioned; and if he intends to take any and, if so, what steps to expedite recording?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. F. C. Thomson): My Noble Friend is aware that the work in
connection with the registration of writs in the General Register of Sasines is in arrear. Arrangements have recently been made with a view to the more effective co-ordination of the work of the staff, and an addition to the number of typists has been sanctioned. It is hoped that these steps may enable the arrears of work to be overtaken in the near future.

HERRING FISHERY (AEROPLANE OBSERVATION).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether, having regard to the experiments carried out under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture in the months of October and November, 1921, and March, 1923, off the east and south coasts of England for the purpose of locating shoals of fish by observation from aeroplanes, and the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that further experimental flights are in contemplation, it can be arranged that these further flights be made during the summer herring-fishing season off the north coasts of Scotland and the Shetland Isles?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): The possibility of making arrangements for such experimental flights off the coast of Scotland during the coming summer is at present under discussion with the Air Ministry. My Noble Friend will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as further information is available.

AGRICULTURAL CONCILIATION COMMITTEES.

Major WARING: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he has held any inquiry since the publication of the remedial measures for agriculture which has led him to suppose that the establishment of conciliation committees is still undesired by the agricultural community in Scotland: and, if not, will he institute an inquiry before finally deciding not to adopt that recommendation of the Agricultural Tribunal?

Captain ELLIOT: No special inquiry has been recently made or is considered necessary, seeing that it is open to the Scottish Farm Servants' Union or to the National Farmers' Union of Scotland at any time to approach the Board of Agriculture
if they decide to modify the attitude which they have hitherto adopted as to the formation of conciliation committees. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Agricultural Tribunal excepted Scotland from their recommendation regarding the establishment of wages boards.

Major WARING: May I ask whether, in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion, Scotland should be excluded?

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the Conciliation Committee not a wages board?

Captain ELLIOT: The point is that neither the employers nor the employés requested that these arrangements should be made. If they have changed their opinion and now wish such arrangements to be made, it is open to them at any time to approach the Board and intimate their change of opinion.

Major WARING: Is it not a fact that the tribunal suggested certain remedial measures for agriculture, and, at the same time, suggested that the agricultural labourer should participate through the conciliation boards?

Captain ELLIOT: If the agricultural labourers in Scotland consider that they would obtain better terms by direct negotiation, it is obviously not the duty of the Board of Agriculture to interfere.

SMALLHOLDERS (SEEDS SUPPLIES).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 31.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that the refusal of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland to supply seed oats and seed potatoes, in view of last year's bad harvest, has occasioned hardship and distress to numbers of smallholders, especially those round the coasts of Caithness and Sunderland; in what respect their case differs from similar cases in previous seasons when, after bad harvests, assistance has been granted by the Board of Agriculture; and whether any money has been set aside in the Estimates of the Scottish Office for the current year in case another bad harvest should occur and the need arise for making grants under Section 4 (b) of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897?

Captain ELLIOT: My Noble Friend has no evidence to show that the scarcity of seed is greater in parts of Caithness and
Sutherland than in other outlying parts of the congested districts, and he is not aware that any hardship or distress can reasonably be attributed to the refusal of the Board to give financial aid towards the purchase of seeds. The Board are not in a position to grant assistance for this purpose from their limited resources unless the need is exceptionally great, and the circumstances of the present year did not justify expenditure for the purpose. No money has been specifically earmarked for this purpose to meet the possibility of an exceptional emergency next year, but consideration of the question would not be precluded if necessity arose.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the difficulty we are up against is that we are told there is no money when fishermen or crofters are in distress? Is it not, best to earmark some of this money before the distress actually arises?

Captain ELLIOT: I understood the hon. and gallant Member's position to be that distress had arisen in these cases.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly, but may I draw attention to the last part of the question, asking the hon. and gallant Gentleman to set aside some money in case of a bad harvest this year?

Captain ELLIOT: If we set aside money for this purpose and it was not expended, it would have to be returned to the Treasury and Scotland would lose the money.

FISHING INDUSTRY (GRANTS).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health what sum of money out of the grants made by Parliament to the Board of Agriculture was distributed by them during the year ending 31st March, 1923, in terms of Section 4 (e) of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act of 1897, in aiding the fishing industry during the present depression, and in what way it was spent; and what sum of money will be spent with the same object during the year ending 31st March, 1924?

Captain ELLIOT: The total amount of the Board's expenditure and commitments in terms of Section 4 (1) (e) of the Act of 1897 during the year ended the 31st March, 1923, was £4,252, most of which
was in respect of loans for the erection of fishermen's dwellings. It is not possible at the present time to state what will be the amount of the corresponding expenditure and commitments during the year ending the 31st March, 1924.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would it not be possible to make some payment out of this fund in order to help fishermen to replace their lost and damaged gear?

Captain ELLIOT: The position in regard to security is very different in the case of a loan upon a building, and in the case of a loan upon nets and gear, and there is a very difficult legal position.

WAR STOCK (INVESTMENTS FOR CHILDREN).

Mr. SHINWELL: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to take steps to alter the Law to enable parents, resident in Scotland, who have invested in War Stock on behalf of their children, to negotiate such stock in order to meet liabilities incurred in connection with expenditure on the education of the children; and whether the difficulties experienced by Scottish holders of War Stock will be removed, thus placing them in a similar position to that held by holders of stock resident in England?

Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension: Scottish holders of War Stock are in this respect in exactly the same position as other holders, which is that stock in the sole name of an infant cannot be dealt with until the holder attains the age of 21.

Mr. SHINWELL: If I submit a case of this kind to the right hon. Gentleman, will he give it his consideration?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be pleased to look into any case submitted to me.

EMIGRATION.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 96.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the description in the Press of the departure from Stornoway of 320 emigrants to Canada, 300 men and 20 women, after being examined by the Board of Trade's medical officer; and whether arrangements can be made to send a more equal number of men and women?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: My attention has been called to the departure of migrants from Stornoway, and I am aware that in this, as in many other cases, the number of male migrants largely exceeded the number of female migrants. I invite my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the Report of the Oversea Settlement Committee for 1922, Command 1804—especially pages 13 and 14 from which he will see that the Committee are fully alive to the importance of female migration, but that special difficulties attach to it. I can assure him that every effort has been and will be made to increase the number of women migrants.

Sir C. YATE: Is it fair to send 300 of the best men from the Highlands, and leave behind all the girls forlorn?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is as good a judge as anyone of that.

Mr. MUIR: In view of the official statement in the Canadian Parliament that from 15 to 20 per cent. of the Canadian farmers went out of business owing to failure during 1922, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider reducing the number of male emigrants to equalise with the females?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the Government will give any indication that should there be any of these women who desire to go to Canada in order to marry these emigrants when they are established, that the Government will give them their first consideration in regard to passage money?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Oh, certainly!

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GLASGOW.

Mr. THOMAS HENDERSON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he has any information as to the difference in cost and construction between the housing scheme built by the method of direct labour under and by the Glasgow Town Council and the housing schemes built and completed by private enterprise under contract to the aforementioned town council?

Captain ELLIOT: The estimated average difference in cost per house as between the direct labour scheme and a private contract scheme entered upon at approximately the same date is brought out at £42 in favour of the former, but the actual difference cannot be ascertained until the contracts have been completed. As the two schemes were tendered for on a different basis, it does not follow that the above difference will be actually realised. The construction is similar in both schemes.

Mr. HENDERSON: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to take steps to have that obnoxious Clause in the Housing Bill altered so that an authority might proceed directly to erect houses?

Captain ELLIOT: I have been struck by these figures and will look into them.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that building by direct labour is always more substantial than that which is done by contract?

Mr. WHEATLEY: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that very large numbers of Glasgow tenants are being brought before the ejection Court there weekly; that decrees are being granted in many cases, while others are continued on the understanding that the tenants make certain payments towards the arrears; that in nearly every case the persons sued have been unemployed for long periods and are in destitute circumstances, and consequently unable to pay from their meagre incomes current rent, much less arrears; and will he consider what steps can be taken to avert wholesale evictions?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: With regard to the first part of the question, I am aware that a considerable number of applications for summary removing are being made in the Glasgow Sheriff Court. As regards the remaining parts of the question, I understand that in cases where the tenants are unemployed decrees are not granted if the rent is not more than nine months in arrear or if destitution is proved. I am satisfied that the utmost discretion is being exercised both in granting and in putting into force decrees of evction for non-payment of rent.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that nine months' exemption is merely the period that is supposed to be covered by the recent Bryde v. Kerr case? May I take it from the reply that the proving of destitution in itself by an unemployed man will be sufficient to protect him against an ejectment warrant being granted?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND: Decrees are granted only in cases where it is clearly put forward that the tenant is in a position to make some payment, or in cases where decrees in absentia are given and where the tenant has made no objection to that course.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon and learned Gentleman aware that decrees have been granted against people who were destitute, and that they have been evicted from their homes despite their destitution? In view of the Bill now before the House that problem will become aggravated. What steps does the hon. and learned Gentleman propose to take afterwards?

SCOTLAND.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he can state the names of the various Scottish bodies, associations or committees from whom representations have been received by the Scottish Office or the Scottish Board of Health in favour of a separate Housing Bill for Scotland?

Captain ELLIOT: A copy of a resolution of the nature mentioned was submitted to the Secretary for Scotland by a committee of the Convention of Royal Burghs. Apart from this, no representations on the subject by Scottish bodies have been received by the Scottish Office or the Scottish Board of Health.

Mr. MILLAR: Has the hon. and gallant. Gentleman not received representations from the special committee appointed to advise the Scottish Office on the housing question and in regard to separate treatment for Scotland?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the case that the largest corporation in Scotland, that of Glasgow, asked the Scottish Office to give a separate Bill?

Captain ELLIOT: I have notice only of representations which have been received by the Scottish Office or the Scottish Board of Health, and we have not received these representations either at the Scottish Office or at the Scottish Board of Health.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman had no representation from the conference which met at Dundee on the 24th?

Captain ELLIOT: No, Sir.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that these representations have been made, whether they have reached the Scottish Office or not?

Captain ELLIOT: Yes, but there is a difference between representations addressed, as the question puts it, specifically to the Scottish Office, and representations addressed to individual Members.

Captain BENN: May we take it, then, that the representation addressed to the hon. and gallant Gentleman as Under-Secretary for Scotland is not a valid representation and that of it no notice is taken?

Captain ELLIOT: I have no such office, and, consequently, no such representation could be made, but in general the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has held office himself, must be aware that representations to a Department are made officially to the Department.

Mr. MILLAR: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he can state the total number of houses allocated to Scotland under the Housing and Town Planning, etc. (Scotland), Act, 1919, and schemes approved thereunder, in respect of which the liability of local authorities as regards the deficit arising was restricted to four-fifths of a penny rate; the number of houses still to be provided under the 1919 Act; the total amount of the liability undertaken by the State in connection with the provision of the houses allocated to Scotland under the 1919 Act; the amount which represents the outstanding liability of the State as regards the houses not yet provided in Scotland under that Act; and the proportion which the total amount
of the liability undertaken by the State for Scotland bears to that undertaken by the State for England and Wales?

Captain ELLIOT: The number of houses allocated to local authorities and public utility societies in Scotland under the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland), Act, 1919, is 25,550. While the Board's approval to schemes under that Act extended to a larger number of houses than 25,550, such approval under the Act and relative Regulations was, for subsidy purposes, limited to the number of houses that were completed before the end of the subsidy period, namely, August, 1922, which, however, was subsequently extended by two years in order to enable local authorities to complete houses for which tenders had been approved. Up to date about 16,600 houses have been completed and 8,950 are in course of construction or are not yet contracted for. In the circumstances it is not at present possible to state what the amount of the State liability will be, but it is estimated that it will not be less than £1,000,000 per annum. I understand that information regarding the liability of the State in respect of the provision of houses in England and Wales is being furnished to the hon. and learned Member in reply to his question addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the hon. and gallant Member reply to the last part of the question, as to the proportion of State liability for Scotland compared with that for England and Wales?

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 100.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in order to enable Members of this House to fully appreciate the size and amenities of a house containing from 650 to 750 superficial feet, he will endeavour to arrange for the erection within or adjoining the precincts of this House of a temporary building containing a scullery, living room, parlour, bath room, and three bedrooms, and for such rooms to be furnished in a simple but suitable manner?

Lord E. PERCY: My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to his reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir T. Bennett) on the 26th ult.

STATE LIABILITY.

Mr. MILLAR: 101.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses allocated to England and Wales under the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919, and schemes approved thereunder; the total number of houses provided in England and Wales and the number still to be provided under the 1919 Act; and the total liability undertaken by the State in connection with the houses provided and yet to be provided, respectively?

Lord E. PERCY: The State-assisted housing schemes of local authorities and public utility societies in England and Wales were limited to 176,000 houses, of which 159,000 had been completed on the 1st April last, and 16,998 were either in course of construction or had not been commenced. It is estimated that the total Exchequer charge in respect of the 176,000 houses in England and Wales will amount aproximately to £8,750,000 per annum in the early years. It is hoped that a reduction will be secured on this charge in later years as loans are reborrowed at, lower rates of interest. The houses not yet completed are in the majority of cases included in larger contracts and it is not practicable to make a separate estimate of their cost.

RURAL HOUSING AND SANITARY ASSOCIATION.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether, before moving the Report stage of the Housing (Money) Resolution, he can see his way to receiving a deputation of the Rural Housing and Sanitary Association and other representatives of rural interests?

Lord E. PERCY: There will not be time to receive this deputation before the Report stage of the Housing (Money) Resolution, which my right hon. Friend is afraid cannot be postponed. He will, however, he happy to see representatives of the association at a very early date.

Captain BENN: But does not the Noble Lord realise that once the Report stage of this Resolution is taken the question is settled. Why, therefore, could not the Minister arrange to-day or to-morrow morning to see the authorised spokesman of this deputation?

Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid the engagements of my right hon. Friend will not permit him to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PIT PONIES AND MECHANICAL HAULAGE.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 35.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the fact that 2,292 of the ponies employed in the mines of Great Britain in 1921 either died or had to be destroyed in consequence of injuries received, and that 1,933 either died or had to be destroyed owing to disease, and that 6,102 received non-fatal injuries, he will give directions that the recommendations made by His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the Northern Division shall be carried out, namely, that no inexperienced person shall be allowed to take charge of a pony underground; that there should be a more rigid supervision of pony drivers so as to ensure attention to the details which make for the safety and comfort of the ponies; and that the condition of the roadways shall receive careful attention, so that when it is found that more height is required for the pony, this should be made in a proper manner, and not by merely digging holes between the sleepers?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): I would draw my hon. and learned Friend's attention to Section 45 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and paragraph 15 of the 3rd Schedule, which deal with the points mentioned. Inspectors of Mines keep these requirements prominently before those responsible, and no further directions, as suggested in the question, should be necessary.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the special recommendations of His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the Northern Division, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give directions that these provisions of the Act should be more strictly enforced?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Instructions have already been given that the provisions of the Act should be fully enforced, but the recommendations of this inspector were merely suggestions as to how the general provisions of the Act should be specially carried out—they were not a request for new legislation or regulations.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will these recommendations he given effect to?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. As far as I can secure it, they are being fully given effect to.

Mr. SEXTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is mechanical haulage in use in some pits in place of the ponies?

Mr. CAIRNS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why, if there is more rigid supervision over pit ponies, 1,000 of them died of disease?

MECHANICAL HAULAGE.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 36.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the statement by His Majesty's Inspector of Mines for the Northern Division that in that division mechanical forms of haulage are not employed in cases where it would be an advantage to do so, he will instruct His Majesty's inspectors of mines for the divisions to consider and report whether mechanical forms of haulage could to some extent be advantageously employed in substitution for haulage by ponies; and whether he will state to what extent mechanical haulage has been adopted in mines in Great Britain during the last few years in substitution for haulage by ponies?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: No precise data as to the relative extent of mechanical haulage and horse haulage are available, but it may be inferred from the annual statistics as to the number of pit ponies employed that mechanical forms of haulage have displaced nearly 10,000 pit ponies during the past 10 years. The substitution of mechanical haulage; for horse haulage is still going on, and it is the general opinion of the inspectors of mines that it can be carried much further with advantage. I have already issued an announcement that Mr. Charles Markham has placed at my disposal a sum of £1,000 to be offered as a prize for the best storage battery locomotive for use underground. Details of this competition will shortly be announced, and I hope that its result will be further progress in this direction.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In the meantime, may we not look to the humanity of the British miner to look after the ponies as well as possible?

Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. I am quite sure that many of these rumours of ill-treatment of pit ponies are much exaggerated.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: May we not also look to the humanity of the British colliery owners?

Mr. CAIRNS: The pony drivers love their ponies.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BICYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 38.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether, having regard to numerous fatal accidents recently reported and the recommendations made by coroners that rear lights on bicycles are essential as a protection for the cyclist, he will now issue Regulations compelling the use of rear lights on all vehicles, including bicycles and tricycles?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 19th February to a question from the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Hill) of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. C. BUXTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling of cyclist clubs on this question, on the ground that a cyclist, not having eyes in the back of his head, cannot see whether the rear light of his machine is alight or not?

Colonel ASHLEY: More than one deputation has been received, and I think the Department is fully seized of the facts in regard to this matter.

RICHMOND TRAIN SERVICE.

Mr. BECKER: 39.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if, in view of the anticipated rush of visitors to Richmond during the coming summer, he will make representations to the District Railway to increase the service of trains to Richmond?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have no doubt that the railway companies concerned have this question under consideration, but I am forwarding the hon. Member's question to them.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will adequate police arrangements be made to protect the residents of Richmond?

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Is there any possibility of the District Railway engaging the services of Mr. Winter of the British Empire Exhibition for this purpose?

ROAD GRANTS, GLASGOW.

Mr. WHEATLEY: 41.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, if he is aware that it has been reported to the Glasgow Corporation Tramway Committee that his Ministry has made it a condition of grants for road schemes that the work should be done by contracting, whereas the tramways department has hitherto supervised its own extension schemes; and will he state under what authority the Ministry has enforced this condition?

Colonel ASHLEY: My Department have not attached any such condition to grants made from the Road Fund. Local Authorities were, however, advised that the view of the Government was that the contract system should be adopted to the utmost possible extent, in connection with works expedited for the relief of unemployment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Will any difficulty be placed in the way of an important and efficient corporation like that of Glasgow doing its own work, if they should find it cheaper to do so, by direct labour?

Colonel ASHLEY: My view is that contract labour is more economical.

Mr. W. THORNE: Rubbish!

Mr. WHEATLEY: Supposing the Glasgow Corporation from their long experience think otherwise, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman put his opinion before theirs?

MOTOR AMBULANCE (ABERCORN SCHOOL, PAISLEY).

Captain HAY: 42.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport why they have refused exemption to the Renfrewshire Education Authority from the annual licence of £25 for their motor ambulance attached to Ahercorn (Special) School, Paisley, seeing that this vehicle is used solely for the transport of defective children?

Colonel ASHLEY: As I stated on 16th April, in reply to the hon. Member for the Peebles and Southern Division, the question whether or not a particular vehicle can properly be termed an "ambulance" is a matter of law to be decided on the facts of the case. The Minister of Transport has no power to grant or refuse exemption, but in order to secure uniformity of administration, it is found desirable that the Department should offer advice on cases where there is diversity of practice.

Captain HAY: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for Adjournment.

TRAFFIC, STREET, LONDON.

Viscount CURZON: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the increasing congestion of the London traffic consequent principally on the repair of roadways, increase of general traffic, use of the busiest arteries by heavy horse-drawn traffic, etc.; whether he is now prepared to adopt and put into force the recommendations of the Committee on London Traffic or, alternatively, to adopt such of their recommendations as will afford immediate relief; and whether the Ministry can immediately do something to co-ordinate the programme of the repair work of the various local authorities so as to avoid parallel main arteries being blocked at the same time?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am fully aware of the general increase in the volume of London traffic, but I am not in a position to initiate legislation for the setting up of the London traffic authority recommended in the report of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic. In answer to the last part of the question, I may say that, within the narrow limitations of my present powers and staff, I am doing all I can to promote the co-operation of local authorities with a view to mitigating the inconvenience caused by road repairs.

Viscount CURZON: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say he can do nothing; and, in regard to the first part of the question, is he not aware that the state of London traffic is becoming increasingly difficult, and cannot
he do something to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on London Traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: My Noble Friend must realise that legislation would be required, and that since the Report of the Committee to which he refers there has been the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Ullswater, which not only deals with traffic, but also with town planning and drainage, and it is very difficult to disentangle these questions.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the appointment of a new Committee to investigate the results of these other Committees and Commissions?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (ACCESS TO SUBWAY).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 40.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that Members of this House were prevented by railway companies' officials from obtaining access to the subway leading from Westminster Underground station to this House when arriving by trains from the West on Thursday, 26th April; and will he make representations to the railway company that on future occasions when it is necessary to restrict and divert passenger traffic that Members desiring to reach this House should still be allowed free access to the underground subway from Westminster station?

Colonel ASHLEY: The railway company inform me that on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, two inspectors were specially stationed at the Bridge Street exit to Westminster Bridge Station in order to arrange that facilities might be given to Members of either House of Parliament to use the subway, notwithstanding the fact that the Bridge Street exit had to be closed to the general public. The company say that they always adopt this practice on occasions such as that in question; and I think that if on future occasions hon. Members who desire to use the subway will make themselves known to the railway company's officials, no difficulties should arise. I regret if any hon. Member has been inconvenienced.

Mr. W. THORNE: In anticipation of the marriage of the Prince of Wales, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make the arrangements indicated in the question?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think I have already answered quite clearly that two inspectors were there to see that hon. Members, who desired to do so, got through the subway.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that one hon. Member at least had considerable difficulty in persuading the police that he was a Member of Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should introduce himself all round.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TOTTENHAM SUB-POST OFFICE.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the constant complaints of business people at the inadequacy of the present sub-post office at High Cross, Tottenham; and when he intends to take definite steps to provide adequate premises?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject, yesterday, to the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Major Malone).

Mr. MORRISON: In view of the dissatisfaction existing on this matter, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH ACCOUNTS.

Captain Viscount EDNAM: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make arrangements that quarterly telephone and telegraph accounts should be submitted to private subscribers in greater detail than at present, particularly as far as trunk calls and telegrams are concerned, in order that subscribers may maintain a closer check upon the use of their telephones?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The present system of accounts seems to meet the requirements of the general body of subscribers. To supply all subscribers with particulars of each trunk call or telegram would cause considerable delay and expense. Any subscriber, however,
can be supplied with fuller information on payment of a fee proportionate to the clerical work involved.

Viscount EDNAM: Could the right hon. Gentleman do away with the payment of this fee, and would he consider it a businesslike method of rendering an account in the case of a shop or other private business?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid I very often do receive accounts like that from shops. The supplying of all these particulars to everybody who does not want them is really costing the Department very large sums, but to anybody who does want them we supply the figures.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a division into two parts, at any rate, so as to show in the account whether the sum comes under trunk calls or telegrams? That would be helpful.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider that suggestion.

WIRELESS EXPERIMENIAL LICENCES.

Mr. TUBBS: 76 and 77.
asked the Postmaster-General (1) what are the Regulations in force governing the grant of wireless experimental licences, and upon what grounds the application for such a licence of Signalman W. C. Newman, No. 2,555,814, of the 56th Divisional Signals, Territorial Army, was refused in February last;
(2) whether officers and other ranks in the Royal Corps of Signals, Territorial Army, are given preferential consideration in the granting of wireless experimental licences; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of making such provision in the interests of His Majesty's service?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Experimental licences are issued to all applicants who satisfy the Post Office that the object of obtaining the licence is to conduct experiments in wireless telegraphy and that they are qualified to do so. The application made by Signalman Newman cannot at present be traced, but if the hon. Member will write to me supplementing the particulars he furnished I will have further inquiry made. Applications for experimental licences from officers and other ranks in the Royal Air
Corps of Signals, Territorial Army, who desire to carry out experiments in connection with their Army duties, are given preferential consideration.

AMERICAN MAILS.

Mr. BECKER: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that outward mails to the United States of America are carried on fast British ships, and inward mails are carried on slow American ships; and whether he will take steps to accelerate the mail services between this country and the United States of America?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The mails despatched from this country to the United States of America are conveyed across the Atlantic by the fastest ships available, and in that respect it does not appear that any improvement is attainable. The mails from America are sent by ships selected by the United States Postal Administration.

Mr. BECKER: Could we have the mails sent from the United States of America on English boats, which are fast and up-to-date?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: That is entirely a matter for the American Postal Department. We cannot control that.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPH STATIONS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 80.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Comptroller and Accountant-General of the Post Office has made Reports to the Treasury on the Post Office wireless telegraph stations, as promised in an answer given in the House on 19th July, 1921; and, if so, whether copies of these Reports can be circulated for the information of Members of the House?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The Financial Reports prepared by the Comptroller and Accountant-General of the Post Office in respect of the Post Office wireless services during the financial years 1920–21 and 1921–22 were included in the Post Office Commercial Accounts, issued as Parliamentary Papers on the 9th February, 1922 (No. 7), and 19th February, 1923 (No. 14), respectively.

Sir BRITTAIN: 81.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will circulate a statement giving particulars of the high
power wireless telegraph stations worked either by the Governments or commercial enterprise in the United States, France, Germany and this country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will have a statement, giving the particulars desired by the hon. Member, prepared and circulated, as soon as possible, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Oral Answers to Questions — URBAN RATES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the considerable assistance which will be given to ratepayers in rural districts by the Government grant of £2,750,000 to make good the deficiency caused by the reduced rating on agricultural land, what equivalent assistance he proposes to give to ratepayers in urban districts where the assistance given by the reduced rating on agricultural land in their areas is infinitesimal when compared with the total heavy burden of their rates?

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Minister of Health. The proposal that the Exchequer should make good the deficiency arising from the reduced rating of agricultural land, both in urban and in rural districts, does not seem to constitute a ground for making a special grant to urban districts.

Mr. THOMSON: May I ask if the Minister had full regard to the fact that, whereas the average rural rates are 11s. in the £, the average urban rates are 15s. and 16s. in the £?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member does not seem to realise that there are a good many urban districts which contain more agricultural land than do a good many rural districts.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE).

Mr. CAIRNS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the revenue of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England and Wales during the last financial year separately, and for the last five years; and will he inform the House of the sources of such income and how the income is used or spent, and to whom?

Major BIRCHALL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to reply to this question.
The information will be found in the Annual Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the years 1919–1923 as presented to Parliament. The revenue for the last financial year (to 31st October, 1922) was £2,296,000. The income is derived from estates and funds belonging

INCOME OP THE COMMON FUND OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONED BROUGHT INIO ACCOUNT IN EACU OP THE ACCOUNTING YEARS TO—


31st October, 1918
…
…
…
£2,129,800


31st October, 1919
…
…
…
£2,296,500


31st October,1920
…
…
…
£2,310,100


31st October,1921
…
…
…
£2,362,700


31st October,1922
…
…
…
£2,296,000

APPLICATION.


Balance brought forward.
Year.
Payments to Bishops, Chapters and Benefices, Administrative expenses and Income Tax.
Minerals Depreciation Fund.
Appropriation Fund to meet payments due 1st November.
Appropriations for further augmentations of benefices, etc.
Added to Balance.
Taken from Balance.
Balance carried forward.


£

£
£
£
£
£
£
£


514,000
1918
1,561,500
80,000
—
506,900
—
18,600
496,300


—
1919
1,857,800
80,000
—
326,600
32,100
—
528,400


—
1920
1,916,700
80,000
220,000
332,000
—
238,600
289,800


—
1921
1,955,000
80,000
—
356,000
—
28,300
261,500


—
1922
1,889,400
80,000
—
355,100
—
28,500
233,000

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARIAN BONDS (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).

Colonel Sir CHARLES BURN: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is prepared to take steps to assist, by arbitration or otherwise, those citizens of Great Britain who, before the War, invested money in Hungarian bonds which became repayable in 1916?

Viscount WOLMER: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. A test case has been presented to the Anglo-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal by the Administrator of Hungarian Property.

Sir C. BURN: Has not the time arrived when some pressure should be put on the Hungarian Government to repay money owing for some considerable time, seeing that we have given our Continental debtors ample time in which to repay us?

Viscount WOLMER: This is a matter that has to be brought before the tribunal.

to the Commissioners and, subject to the charges thereon, is applicable in accordance with the provisions of Section 67 of the Act 3 and 4 Vic. ch. 113 to making increased provision for clergy of the Church of England.

As the answer to the second part of the question is rather long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Sir C. BURN: Will it be brought forward without delay?

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE BILL.

MOTOR-CAR TAXATION.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has recently received a communication from the owner-drivers' branch of the motor-cab trade, asking that taxi-cabs, imported from France, should be placed in the same category as commercial vehicles and omnibuses; and whether he can see his way to make any concession on this matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have received the communication referred to, but I regret that I do not see my way to accede to the request contained therein.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had submitted to him any more satisfactory
method of motor taxation than that now in vogue; and, if so, whether he will agree to revise the present system?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. Any schemes submitted have been referred to the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles for their consideration, and I am awaiting their Report.

SPIRIT DUTY.

Mr. HUGHES: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the proposed tax of 10s. per quarter on imported malting barley will add six-pence per gallon to the cost of making whisky; and will he consider giving distillers a relief from the present duty in spirits similar to that which has been accorded to brewers?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have received representations in the sense indicated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I have been unable to include any relief from the Spirit Duty amongst my Budget proposals.

REVENUE (SCOTTISH SOURCES).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the public revenue was derived during the year 1922–23 from Scottish sources; and what proportion of the estimated revenue of the current year he expects to derive from the same sources?

Mr. BALDWIN: The information asked for is not at present available, but I shall be glad to see whether an estimate can be made at a later date, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member in due course.

SCOTTISH OILS COMPANY (BRICKLAYERS' WAGES).

Mr. SHINWELL: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the works of the Scottish Oils Company, in which the Government have a large holding, a dispute is in progress as a result of which bricklayers are being paid less than the district rate; whether steps will be taken to induce the firm to comply with the Fair Wage Clause; and whether he can state the rate paid
at the works of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company at Swansea?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Government has no holding in the Scottish Oils Company, but through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has an indirect and comparatively very minor interest. I am informed that bricklayers employed in the oilworks are members of the Oilworkers' Union, and their wages are regulated through that union by reference to the wages of other workers in the oil industry. In reply to the last part of the question, I understand that the bricklayers at Skewen are paid the district rate.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not a fact that the Scottish Oils Company is part of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and that, therefore, the Government have an interest in the Scottish Oils Company?

Mr. BALDWIN: I said so.

Mr. SHINWELL: In view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the bricklayers are paid the rate paid to bricklayers in the district?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have no power in this matter, because the Fair Wages Clause, to which the hon. Member alludes, holds good only with regard to direct contractors with the Government and to men in direct Government service. It does not hold good with regard to the few instances in which the Government happen to be shareholders to some extent in companies. That is the difficulty.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the Government are represented by two directors on the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

Mr. BALDWIN: That is so, but that is for a special reason and on special terms, which I think my hon. Friend has heard debated in this House before.

IRELAND.

INCOME TAX (M. KENNEDY).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to a difference of about £11 between the British Inland Revenue authorities and ex-Head Constable M. Kennedy, Royal Irish Constabulary, as to the amount of Income
Tax payable by the latter on his pay for the year 1920–21, the Inspector-General Royal Irish Constabulary and the Paymaster-General have refused to pay M. Kennedy any part of the pension due to him for the last 15 months, amounting to £277 6s. 8d.; whether he can state what justification exists for withholding this sum of £277 6s. 8d. to answer a disputed claim for about £11; and whether, in view of the hardship on M. Kennedy by this withholding of his pension, he will give directions to put this matter right without delay?

Mr. BALDWIN: Inquiry is being made in the case referred to by my hon. and learned Friend, and I shall communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that the whole of this £277 is being withheld from this man in order to answer a disputed claim of £11, will the right hon. Gentleman accelerate his inquiry as much as possible?

Mr. BALDWIN: I shall be glad to do so.

RESTORATION OF ORDER ACT.

Captain BENN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended that the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act should become a permanent part of the statute law of the country or, if not, when its operation will cease?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridgeman): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second must depend on the progress of affairs in Ireland.

Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Secretary for Scotland, speaking in another place, intimated or inferred that this was a necessary part of the Government machinery—a permanent part?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know what he said, but he cannot have said "permanent."

FREE STATE (IMPERIAL SERVICES).

Colonel GRETTON: 68.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts
due by the Free State Government to the Imperial Exchequer for the financial year ending 31st March last in respect of the contribution to Imperial services under the terms of the Treaty and in respect of Excise duty collected in Southern Ireland, respectively; when he expects that these amounts respectively will be paid; and whether any adjustment is due on account of Customs collected in Southern Ireland?

Mr. BALDWIN: No agreement has yet been reached with the Irish Free State Government as to the amount payable by that Government for Imperial services under Article 5 of the Treaty. As regards the second part of the question, the revenue accounts for 1922–23 are not yet finally complete, but the estimated amount due to the Imperial Exchequer in respect of Excise duty collected in the Irish Free State during the year is £7,900,000, while it is expected that £4,900,000 will be due from the Imperial Exchequer to the Irish Free State on account of Customs duties collected in Great Britain, a net balance of £3,000,000 on Customs and Excise together being thus due from the Irish Free State to the Imperial Exchequer. A payment on account of £1,250,000 has been made by the Irish Free State. The balance will probably be adjusted shortly.

YEAST.

Mr. HUGHES: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that malting barley is largely used in the making of yeast for bread-making, and that the proposed tax of 10s. per quarter will add very considerably to the cost. of this important product and make it more difficult for the home producer to withstand the competition of Continental makers; and whether he can see his way to exclude yeast manufacturers from the operation of this tax, or, alternatively, to place a countervailing duty upon yeast imported into this country?

Mr. BALDWIN: Regard will be had to this and all other relevant points when the relative legislation is under consideration.

INCHINNAN AIRSHIP STATION.

Mr. SHINWELL: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom the
buildings at Renfrew aerodrome have been disposed of; if he can state the purchase price; and whether the sale was effected by private treaty or by public auction.

Major BOYD - CARPENTER: The Renfrew aerodrome has not been disposed of. I assume the hon. Member refers to Inchinnan airship station, adjacent to the Renfrew aerodrome. This property was declared surplus in 1920 and since then has been extensively advertised for sale. It was sold in February last to Messrs. Murray McVinnie & Company, the offer of that firm being the highest received. It is not desirable, in the public interest, to disclose the price obtained.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask why the price which was received for material which was the property of the Government should not be disclosed to Members of this House?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: The hon. Member has repeatedly asked that as a supplementary question, and I have repeatedly replied that it is not in the public interest to answer it. If the hon. Member will choose one day to come along, I shall be happy to show him why.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is there any reason at all why information which can be divulged to a private Member cannot be disclosed to this House? Surely it is in the interest of the Government itself that information asked for—

HON. MEMBERS: Speech!

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Minister says it is not in the public interest, we can go no further.

Mr. W. THORNE: What redress have we? Why is it not in the public interest?

Mr. SPEAKER: If a Minister says it is not, we can only accept the statement.

Mr. W. THORNE: I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have any power to make Ministers do what they are asked to do, in consequence of huge sums of public money being involved?

An HON. MEMBER: We are not a trade union.

Mr. W. THORNE: You never will be.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would like to be able to make many Members do what I want.

Mr. W. THORNE: You can always make me do what you want.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. May I say that it is an abuse of the privilege held by Ministers if they are to reply to questions which endeavour to elicit necessary information in the manner indicated?

Mr. SPEAKER: It has always been understood in the House that the duty of Ministers is to protect the public interest, and if they make that plea, we cannot go any further.

FOOD STUFFS (IMPERIAL PREFERENCE).

Captain W. BENN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the Government at the forthcoming Imperial Conference to concede any preferential treatment to the Dominions in the matter of imported food stuffs?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that it would be advisable to anticipate the discussions on this subject at the Imperial Economic Conference.

Captain BENN: Does that mean that this House will not be allowed to form or shape the policy to be presented at the Imperial Conference by our representatives?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think we must wait and see what questions are raised. Approval will have to be given in due course by Parliament.

Captain BENN: Does that mean that the House of Commons will only be presented with the decisions arrived at and not be asked to say what their view is?

Mr. BALDWIN: The House of Commons can hardly discuss a subject if it does not know whether it will be raised or not.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Major BURNIE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether The Workmen's Compensation (Anglo-French Convention) Act, 1909, is working satisfactorily; and, if so, will he take steps to conclude a similar convention with the Government of the Dominion of Canada?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is, so far as the Home Office is aware, in the affirmative. No special need for entering into a similar arrangement with Canada has so far shown itself, as, generally speaking, the Canadian Acts provide for reciprocal treatment in regard to compensation; but the whole question of reciprocity in this matter is under consideration.

HEALTH AND PUBLIC WELFARE SERVICES.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recommendations of the Poor Law Commission appointed in 1905, that greater co-ordination in the administration of public services should be made, and that since then there has been a great multiplicity of further public services, he will now reconsider the desirability of appointing a Committee of Inquiry to investigate the possibility of a thorough reorganisation of all health and public welfare services, so as to secure greater efficiency and economy than prevails at present?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would ask the hon. Member to await the Report of the Committee, to which his attention has already been drawn.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee referred to is merely a question of interdepartmental arrangements on existing legislation, and that the question suggests new legislation and the reorganisation of the whole system?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the Report of the Departmental Committee was a very valuable step in advance.

LAW OFFICERS (FEES).

Mr. HAYES: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what scale the Law Officers of the Crown receive fees in addition to their salaries; and what was the amount received by them for the last 12 months for which the figures are available?

Mr. BALDWIN: The scale of fees is set out in a Treasury Minute dated 5th July, 1895, which the hon. Member will
find in House of Commons Paper 431, Sess. 2 of 1895. The latest year for which the figures asked for in the second part of the question are available is 1921 and 1922 and the fees paid were




£
s.
d.


Attorney-General
…
24,170
13
2


Solicitor-General
…
9,723
17
0


I would point out, that owing to Prize Court and other War work, this was an exceptional year, and the average for the last 10 years (including 1921–22) was

£
s.
d.


Attorney-General
…
13,091
4
3


Solicitor-General
…
8,486
10
4

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. HOPKINS: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Special Committee of the Cabinet which is to consider relief for pre-War pensioners will deal with the hard case of the pensioned non-commissioned officers who came back to the Army and were given commissions?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Committee propose to reconsider the scale of benefits allowed under the Pensions Increase Act, but will not deal with the pension regulations applicable to particular classes.

Mr. HOPKINS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how these particular cases have been dealt with?

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. PENNY: 69.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will sympathetically consider the introduction of legislation to improve conditions in regard to old age pensions by granting the full scale to all those over 70 years of age whose income or joint incomes are less than, say, £100 per annum, and supersede the existing scale which at present involves hardships, penalises thrift, and is conducive to subterfuge being often resorted to?

Mr. BALDWIN: I fear I can add nothing to the statement I made on the 21st February last on the Motion of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton).

INLAND REVENUE (WAGES RECEIPT STAMPS).

Mr. BECKER: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how long it will be necessary for the personnel employed by the Inland Revenue to give a 2d. receipt stamp for their wages every week; and will he consider abolishing this charge?

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Effect will be given very shortly in the Inland Revenue Department to the arrangements recently sanctioned for the Civil Service for the purpose of obviating, wherever possible, the requirement of receipts for wages.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PAYMENT (DELAY).

Mr. CAIRNS: 84.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that pensioners whose draft books have not been received by post offices owing to delay on the part of the Pensions Issue Office are now forced to wait several days before obtaining payment, and that this change in system is causing hardship to those men who are dependent on their pensions; and whether he proposes to take any steps to restore the practice hitherto in force under which advances wore made by the local pensions officers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Captain Craig): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on this subject on the 19th ultimo, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. CAIRNS: Why should such a man be penalised?

Captain CRAIG: We do not admit he is penalised.

Mr. CAIRNS: He is.

HOME TREATMENT ALLOWANCE (JAMES HENRY).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 86.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of James Henry, of 37, Arran Street, Bala, an ex-soldier undergoing hospital treatment who on the 29th March last was given leave
to visit his family, and who has been refused readmission to hospital owing to an outbreak of measles in his home; is he aware that the Ministry has suspended the home treatment allowances which were being paid, and that the family has been compelled to seek parish relief; and whether, in view of the fact that the man is prepared to return to hospital and is only prevented from doing so by the Ministry, steps will be taken to pay the home treatment allowance during the man's enforced detention at Bala?

Captain CRAIG: In the exceptional circumstances of this case, my right hon. Friend has arranged for allowances to be made during the period of waiting.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (ENFORCEMENT) ACT, 1920.

Mr. BRIANT: 88.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of His Majesty's Dominions have reciprocal provisions been made for the enforcement of separation orders under The Maintenance Orders (Enforcement) Act, 1920?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement Act), 1920, has been extended by Order in Council to the following Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates as the result of reciprocal legislation on their part:

Ashanti.
Australia—Northern Territory.
Barbados.
Basutoland.
Bechuanaland Protectorate.
Bermuda.
British Guiana.
British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
Ceylon.
Cyprus.
Falkland Islands.
Fiji.
Gambia.
Gibraltar.
Gilbert and Ellice Islands.
Gold Coast.
Gold Coast—Northern Territories.
1183
Grenada.
Hong Kong.
Kenya.
Leeward Islands.
Malta.
Mauritius.
New Zealand.
Nigeria.
Northern Rhodesia.
Nyasaland Protectorate.
Queensland.
Saint Lucia.
Saint Vincent.
Seychelles.
Sierra Leone.
Somaliland Protectorate.
South Australia.
Southern Rhodesia.
Straits Settlements.
Swaziland.
Tasmania.
Trinidad and Tobago.
Uganda Protectorate.
Western Australia.
Zanzibar Protectorate.

TANGANYIKA (TRADE TAXATION).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 89.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether instructions were given by a Government officer at Moshi, on 6th April, stopping the sale of food supplies by natives to those Indians who closed their shops as a protest against the laws for the licensing and taxation of trade; whether the closing of shops in Tanganyika is general; whether there is any apprehension of the closing of shops extending to Zanzibar, Kenya, and Uganda; and whether he is prepared to reconsider the suspension of the operation of these laws pending the receipt of the Governor's despatch, and of the arrival of the deputation from Tanganyika, which is now on its way to this country?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It has been ascertained from the Governor that by the unauthorised action of a local officer a prohibition such as referred to was actually in force for one day only, and was immediately cancelled by the Governor. As far as I am aware, the closing of shops by Indian traders continues, but there is no reason to apprehend similar action elsewhere. The Secretary of State is not prepared to reconsider his decision not to suspend the Ordinances.

GOLD COAST (COCOA, EXPORT).

Mr. BRIANT: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the quantity of cocoa exported from the Gold Coast for the three years preceding the reduction by one-half of the export duty: and what was the quantity exported since such reduction?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The export duty on cocoa in the Gold Coast was reduced by half in August, 1922. I cannot supply separate figures for the months prior to and subsequent to the reduction, but the quantity of cocoa exported from the Gold Coast in 1919 was 176,176 tons: in 1920, 124,773 tons; in 1921, 133,195 tons. In the calendar year 1922, the quantity was 156,271 tons, and for the financial year from the 1st of April, 1922, to the 31st of March, 1923, the quantity is estimated to exceed 180,000 tons.

COTTON (EMPIRE CULTIVATION).

Sir W. de FRECE: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the parts of the Empire overseas which are now cultivating cot ton, indicating in each case whether this is done with official assistance; and whether in the various cases the results from the price realised have proved satisfactory?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Cotton is grown in Australia, the Union of South Africa, Cyprus, the Leeward Islands, Barbados, St. Vincent, Nigeria, Nyasaland, Rhodesia, Uganda, Swaziland and Fiji, and, on a smaller scale in a large number of other Colonies and Protectorates. Cotton is also grown in India, but I can give no information as to that part of the Empire. So far as the Colonies and Protectorates are concerned, official assistance by Governments is practically confined to instruction and advice, with, in certain places, control of buying operations so as to protect native growers and to prevent the deterioration of cotton. The Colonial Office is in close touch with the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation in this matter. Prices, necessarily, depend on the position of the market for American cotton, but, having regard to the depression in the cotton trade in this country, I have no reason to suppose that they are inadequate.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. MOSLEY: 98.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Bussy, general manager of Wembley Amusements, Limited, that it is intended to proceed with the erection of the tower at the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley; and whether he has authorised this statement?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have not seen the statement referred to. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ADMINISTRATION OF SAAR DISTRICT.

Sir J. SIMON: (By Private Notice) asked the Prime. Minister whether it is the fact that at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva last week, which was attended by the Minister of Education as British representative, a proposal was brought forward to issue a decree by the authority of the League of Nations as the body responsible under the Treaty of Versailles for administration of the Saar, which made it an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment to criticise publicly, by speech or writing, the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles or the action of the League of Nations; what attitude the British representative took in dealing with this proposal, and whether it is the fact that this proposal has been adopted by the Council of the League without any dissentient vote?

Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. C. Buxton); but, since receiving notice of the question, I have had the opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. I understand that the first and third parts of the question are substantially accurate. With regard to the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend will be prepared, in accordance with precedent, to make a statement to the House in regard to the proceedings of the Council in which he took part.

Sir J. SIMON: When will that be?

Mr. BALDWIN: I have looked up what has been done before, and I find that a statement has been made by the late President of the Board of Education in answer to a Private Notice question; but then, of course, that precludes discussion. If I might drop a suggestion to my right hon. and learned Friend, it is that it is, I understand, open to him and his Friends to arrange, through the usual channels, the Supply Vote to be taken next week My right hon. Friend could then make a statement that may be the subject of discussion on the Foreign and Colonial Services Votes (Class V). That could be taken one day next week.

PRISON OFFICERS (WOMEN).

Mr. BRIANT: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are any women inspectors of prisons, women medical inspectors of prisons and women commissioners of prisons: and, in view of the very large number of women in various penal institutions, if he will make appointments of persons of their own sex to these positions?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There are no women holding the appointments referred to. A woman has been appointed governor of Aylesbury Borstal Institution, many women magistrates serve on the visiting committees of local prisons, and many women act as unofficial visitors to the women, 1,078 in number, in prisons and similar institutions.

Mr. BRIANT: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time, in respect of these positions of enormous responsibility, that women should be made equally responsible with men?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The difficulty is that there is no such equality between men and women prisoners; therefore we cannot very well make equal arrangements for a small number of women and a large number of men.

INSTRUCTIONS TO COMMITTEES.

Mr. LEES SMITH: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling and perhaps some advice—[HON. MEMBERS "Speak up!"]—on a point of procedure which has arisen in the last Session. From these benches we have, I think, on two or three occasions in this Session put
down Instructions for Committees on Bills to be taken after the Second Reading of the Bill had been carried. I do not know whether these Instructions would or would not have been in order, but what has happened is that you have never had the opportunity of ruling whether they were in order or out of order, because they have disappeared from the Notice Paper, and hon. Members who have placed them on the Paper have not had the opportunity of moving them, whether they were in order or not. I have made inquiries as to how this has happened, and I should like to have your ruling as to what is the position in which the House now finds itself in regard to the moving of Instructions, and I would like to know whether the opportunity for dealing with Instructions is when the Order for the committal of the Bill is read to the House. Is that the time that you, Mr. Speaker, rule as to whether Instructions are or are not in order, and is that the time when such Instructions can be debated?
It has been explained that an opportunity arises quite rightly in the case of a Bill which comes before a Committee of the Whole House, but in the case of a Bill which goes to a Standing Committee, the Standing Order which was passed long before Standing Committees were formed has made no provision for Standing Committees, with the result that the time never arises in this House in an ordinary case when it is possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule, or for the Instructions to be discussed. Would you inform the House whether it is the position now that, in the case of a Bill which goes to a Standing Committee, the only chance an unofficial Member has to move an Instiruction is if the Government will give him the time, or if the Government will allow it to be taken as unopposed, or if the Debate on the Second Reading happens to come to an end before 11 o'clock? We should also like to know what is the exact position which has arisen by which the House has lost the right to move Instructions on the majority of Bills. As far as I can ascertain it has not arisen by any intention, but because provision was never made as to what was to happen to Bills sent to Standing Committees. Now that that has become the normal process and new arrangements are in force, will you, Mr.
Speaker, tell us exactly what is the position of the House now in regard to this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member has quite correctly stated what the position is now with regard to Instructions. When the Standing Order was made by the House, in 1907, sending Bills to a Standing Committee as the normal Procedure, it reversed what up to that time had been the practice of the House. I assume that the House of that day was aware of what it was doing, and the effect it would have on the question of moving Instructions. The hon. Member asks me for advice, but the only advice I can give him is that he should draft an Amendment to the Standing Order dealing with Standing Committees, place it on the Paper, and see if he can persuade the Government to give an opportunity for discussing it.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: On this point of Order and the explanation which you, Mr. Speaker, have been asked to give, I think every Member of this House desires to retain a reasonable opportunity for the discussion of Instructions in regard to important Bills, and since it has become more habitual that Bills which at one time would have been kept on the Floor of the House now go upstairs to a Standing Committee, I think all parties will agree that some amendment of our Standing Orders is necessary. May I ask the Government if, through the usual channels, they will consider the possibility of getting an Amendment made to the Standing Order, which probably could be got through this House without any discussion at all to secure the right, first of all, that you, Mr. Speaker, may rule whether certain Instructions are or are not in order, and that when certain sound Instructions have passed the scrutineers this House may have an opportunity of deciding whether such Instructions shall or shall not be given to the Standing Committee upstairs.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: Is it not a fact that the alteration in the Standing Orders was moved by the party to which the hon. Member then belonged, and was it not intended by his party to apply to the Opposition? The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman insisted upon this, and he was supported by the hon. Member and his supporters.

Mr. MacDONALD: We are always glad to listen to what the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down has to say on these points, and we are very glad to see him back again in the House. On this particular point he happens to be right, and I hope he will support me in my request to the Government to enable us to amend the Standing Orders which the right bon. Baronet wished to do some years ago.

Mr. BALDWIN: In response to the appeal of the Leader of the Opposition, I shall of course be very pleased to discuss this matter with him, although I cannot commit myself at this moment, until I have heard what he has to say, as to what course I shall take. I am a little reluctant to suggest to the House ad hoc changes with regard to our procedure, and I think it would be much more suitable, speaking generally, that any changes in our procedure should be considered in relation to the whole procedure of the House. I should be quite willing to discuss this matter without prejudice.

GALLERIES (WOMEN VISITORS)

Mr. BECKER: I wish to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on a question with regard to the seating accommodation in this House for visitors—I refer to the seats under the Gallery, and I want to know if men and women cannot be placed upon an equality so far as watching this Debate is concerned. I want to know whether it would be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that four ladies can sit under the Gallery with five men?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would not like to contest the hon. Member's idea of the division, but I may tell him and the House that ladies have at present the larger opportunity in the Galleries, and I could not see my way to further increase it.

Mr. PENNY: Would it not be possible to consider the advisability of utilising that part of the House for Members, and do away with it altogether for visitors?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is a very useful place for visitors on certain occasions, when Bills are under consideration which require expert advisers. I think this is necessary, and it is especially useful in that way.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: In view of the equality of the sexes, has not the time arrived when all the Galleries and all the accommodation for visitors should be thrown open to men and women alike?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think there are still a few ladies who like to be by themselves.

Mr. PETO: May I ask whether you will not consider what I think is a much more reasonable suggestion, that there should be some equality in the accommodation provided for men and ladies to listen to the Debates in this House; and whether, in order to arrive at that result, you would not allocate certain benches above the clock exclusively to men as a counterpoise to the Ladies Gallery, which is open exclusively to ladies.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking me to divide husband from wife, and that I cannot contemplate doing.

TRADE DISPUTES ACT (1906) REPEAL.

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Trade Disputes Act, 1906.
This is a short and simple Measure of law reform, and the only material Clause in it proposes to repeal the Trade Disputes Act, 1906. Last week the public mind was much exercised by the report of a case in the paper where a member of a trade union was proved to have received very severe pains and penalties at the hands of the executive of a branch of a trade union for working overtime. But what is not generally realised is that for every case where a workman can now recover for wrongs committed against him by his trade union there are hundreds and hundreds of cases where no redress lies. The sole ground of that disability is that the Trade Disputes Act makes a trade union absolutely immune for all wrongs committed by its officers against its members or against other persons, even if those officers of the trade union have acted in the course of their employment and within the scope of their authority. This Act was passed in 1906 in, spite of persistent warnings and opposition from the Conservative benches, and in spite of many misgivings among the more enlightened Liberals of that day.
That opposition and those misgivings have been abundantly justified by the results, because this Act has caused not only a great amount of unemployment but also an incalculable amount of human misery. I should like to put in plain and unembroidered terms the three main provisions of the Act which it is desired to repeal. The first is Section 2 which sanctions picketing at or near the house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business for the purpose of what the Act calls "peaceful persuasion." In the last 17 years this Section has been found to give a cloak and cover to intimidation and violence. Many men and women who were anxious to go to work have not gone to work because they feared to leave their homes at the mercy of mobs. The second Section which it is desired to repeal is Section 3, which reads:
An act done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only that it induces some other person to break a contract of employment or that it is an interference with the trade, business, or employment of some other person, or with the right of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labour as he will.
Let me give an illustration how that Section has worked. I shall give an illustration from the actual history of the colliery area in Lancashire and Cheshire, and, of course, there have been many such cases. The official of a trade union goes to an employer and draws attention to the fact that certain men are working at that colliery who belong to a constitutional union but not to the Miners' Federation, and he says to the employer that he will stop the pits unless these men are dismissed. The employer is induced to dismiss these men, because he fears to have his industry ruined. Moreover, the individual who is dismissed has not the chance of finding other employment, because all the employers in that area are in the same position. They know that their pits will be stopped if they give these men jobs. What is the good of our debating the right to work, what is the good of talking about opening careers to talents, and what is the good of the late Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) saying in Manchester on Saturday last that Liberalism stands for the preservation of the freedom of labour if all parties in the State tolerate a code of law
which is the negation of liberty? The third point in the Act to which I wish to draw attention is Section 4. Under that Section no action can lie against a trade union in respect of any wrong committed by it or on its behalf. That immunity from liability is not limited to wrongs committed in the course of a trade dispute. A trade union can libel a man, it can slander a member, it can negligently run him down, and no remedy is available. That immunity has been described by a distinguished equity Judge as
the unrestricted capacity for injuring other people—a privilege possessed by no other person, society, or corporation in the Realm.
It is not merely a legal question; it is a social and economic question, and the great mass of thinking trade unionists themselves realise that what they once regarded as a triumph is simply a mirage.

Mr. T. SHAW: You know, of course.

Mr. HURST: Of course, I know. I represent a purely industrial constituency, and I have the support of at least as many trade unionists as the hon. Member. What thinking trade unionists realise is that the whole code of trade union law needs drastic and urgent reform, and they appeal to Parliament to deal with that question with wisdom, justice, and, not least, with courage. In order to get the trade union law revised in that way, it is essential, as a condition precedent, to get rid of this bad law of 1906, in order to restore to trade unions what I think I can fairly describe without irony as the precious gift of legal responsibility. There is no irony in that, because all history and experience shows that the possession of great power without responsibility is a blot on any social system. With that purpose in view, I respectfully commend the objects of this Bill to Parliament and to the country, and I ask the House of Commons for leave to introduce it.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Let me congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman at least upon his courage, if not upon his wisdom. Hon. Members will observe the difference between his action and that of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister two days ago was asked when he was likely to deal with this iniquitous trade union tyranny that now exists.

Captain SHIPWRIGHT: I do not think that those were the terms of the Prime Minister's answer.

Mr. THOMAS: It is a short definition. When he was asked to deal with this question, the Prime Minister said, "I propose inviting responsible trade union leaders to discuss the question with me." My hon. and learned Friend says, "Oh, no, this is the action of a coward. No such methods with me. I do not want to consult people. I want someone who will deal with it right out." Then the hon. and learned Gentleman comes along and says, "Here is a Bill that is going to free the working classes of this country from the tyranny of the trade unions," and, on behalf of the working-classes of this country, we merely thank him for his championship. But, he says, take the case last week where a poor working man was denied his right to live. Take the case, not of one, but of those 30 members of the medical profession who, two years ago, when they applied for a job on trade union rates, were told, "This is blacklegging, and we will deny you the right to live." That is trade union tyranny about which my hon. and learned Friend is silent. At all events, he has not had the courage to introduce a Bill to deal with it. Then he rightly says that he is an authority on this matter. That is perfectly true. He himself is a member of the strongest trade union in the country, and he knows some of the actions of that trade union. But we do not intend to treat this Motion seriously. The Trade Disputes Act which he now asks the House to repeal was the Act that was responsible for the creation of this party. If hon. Members want to hasten the day when we cross to that side of the House instead of sitting on this side, not only should they get on with their Bill, but we say to them, "Persuade the Government to give you all the facilities which they can for its passage." Therefore, and to show how sincere we are in this, we do not even ask the House to divide on the Motion.

Question, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Trade Disputes Act, 1906," put, and agreed to.

Mr. PRINGLE: A Division was challenged. I understood that when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Thomas) rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already declared that the "Ayes" have it.

Mr. PRINGLE: But I called out "No," and said that the "Noes" had it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I only heard a single "No."

Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that, simply because the Labour party do not go to a Division, and do not challenge a Division, no other section of the House is to have the right to challenge a Division?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not to understand anything of the sort.

Captain BENN: On that point of Order. May I inform you, Sir, that I also said "No," and several of our hon. Friends said "No"; and, further, that we relied upon the Standing Order, which says that an hon. Member may be called upon if he opposes the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not know what was going to be said when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby rose. Situations of this kind have arisen before. I cannot go back on my decision. I have declared that the "Ayes" have it.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Nall, Sir Henry Craik, Sir Frederick Banbury, Major Sir George Hamilton, Mr. Hopkinson, Colonel Sir Charles Burn, Dr. Watts, Lieut.-Colonel Archer-Shee, Colonel Sir Charles Yate, Mr. Samuel Roberts, and Captain Shipwright.

TRADES DISPUTES ACT (1906) REPEAL BILL,

"to repeal the Trades Disputes Act, 1906," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it not the Rule to ask an hon. or right hon. Gentleman, who rises to speak on a Motion under the Ten Minutes Rule, whether he intends to oppose the Bill, and is it not a Rule of the House that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who opposes a Bill in such a case is understood to challenge a Division?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question was raised in the time of my predecessor, and
I think his answer was that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.

Mr. PRINGLE: But, when a right hon. Gentleman rises with the intention of not dividing, is he entitled to oppose the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point has been covered by the ruling of my predecessor on more than one occasion.

Mr. SHINWELL: On that same point of Order. May I submit that, in this Session and in the preceding one, we have had instances of a similar character, and that no exception has been taken? We have had instances when hon. Members rose ostensibly for the purpose of opposing Bills which were eventually accepted unanimously.

Mr. SPEAKER: We had a case only last, week.

Mr. PRINGLE: In that case, was not the hon. Member asked whether he was going to oppose the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am bound to say I did not know, until his last sentence, that the right hon. Gentleman was not going to divide.

Mr. PRINGLE: I also wish to recall that on two instances during this Session I have opposed Bills in these circumstances, and on both of those occasions I was asked explicitly whether I opposed the Bill; and on both occasions, in the first instance, I challenged a Division.

Mr. THOMAS: May I put it to you that on many occasions, both this Session and in the last Parliament, a similar procedure was adopted, and, if an hon. Member feels that the best means of opposing a Bill is to take the line that I indicated, is he not strictly within his rights in doing so? If, on the other hand, any section of the House were denied the opportunity of showing that they have more interest in trade unionism than the Labour party, we should very much regret it.

Mr. PETO: In view of the subtlety of the point which has just been put by the right hon. Gentleman, may I point out that this occasion differs materially from any previous occasion? It has been the
custom, when an hon. Member has risen to oppose a Measure under the Ten Minutes Rule, that he has been asked, as the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) has pointed out, whether he rose to oppose the Measure or not, and in any event the speeches made have been in strong opposition to the Measure. The speech, however, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was not only in support of the Measure, but the right hon. Gentleman wished the Mover every power and success, and even went so far as to urge that he should press the Government to afford facilities for getting it through. In these circumstances, may I ask whether it is not really a departure from the principle of the rule that an hon. Member can only speak after the introduction of a Measure if he intends to oppose it, and is, presumably, going to divide against it?

Mr. SPEAKER: Speaking from recollection, the words of my predecessor were that it is not essential that a Member should divide against a Bill. Of course, Mr. Speaker has no power to make him divide, but it certainly has been the understanding that he intended to oppose the Measure, and, until the last words of the right hon. Gentleman, I assumed that that was what he was going to do. I can see the outside of the right hon. Gentleman, but not the inside.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the late Speaker, when Sir John Rees was opposing the introduction of a Bill, and said, "I do not intend to divide against the Bill," said, "In those circumstances the hon. Baronet has not the right to speak, and I must ask him to sit down"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I should have done the same had that been stated at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but when it is only stated in the last sentence, I am helpless.

FORESTRY (TRANSFER OF WOODS) BILL,

"to provide for the transfer of certain properties to the Forestry Commissioners; and to amend the Forestry Act, 1919; and for purposes in connection therewith," presented by the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER; supported by Major
Boyd-Carpenter and Mr. Forestier-Walker; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

THORNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills: That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Gardiner; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Morris.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee A: Captain Shipwright and Mr. D. G. Somerville.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Housing, etc. (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Adams, Mr. Attorney-General, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Captain Brass, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Sir Samuel Chapman, Mr. John Davison, Captain Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. McLaren, Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. Robert Morison, Mr. Newbold, Lord Eustace Percy, and Sir Philip Pilditch.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fourteen Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Cotton Industry Bill): Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Captain Bowyer, Mr. Collison, Mr. Fildes, Mr. Gerald Hurst, Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame, Lieut.-Colonel Nall, Mr. Pennefather, Mr. Remer, Mr. William Robinson, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Lord Stanley, Mr. Tout, and Viscount Wolmer.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Performing Animals Bill): Captain Arthur Evans and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy; and had appointed in substitution: Dr. Chapple and Mr. John Davies.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee D: Mr. Ernest Alexander, Colonel Alexander, Lieut.-Commander Astbury, Major Attlee, Mr. Becker, Mr. Bromfield, Major Burnie, Mr. Charles Buxton, Mr. Hall Caine, Sir Warden Chilcott, Sir James Cory, Mr. Crooke, Mr. Darbishire, Mr. Thomas Davies, Mr Harvey Dixon, Major Edmondson, Viscount Elvedon, Mr. Fair-bairn, Major Fawkes, Captain John Hay, Major Thomas Hay, Sir Sydney Henn., Captain Sidney Herbert, Sir John Hewett, Mr. William Albert Jenkins, Mr. Harcourt Johnstone, Mr. Haydn Jones, Colonel Sir Arthur Lever, Mr. Cyril Lloyd, Mr. Lorimer, Mr. Arthur Loyd, Captain Martin, Colonel Mercer, Mr. Mosley, Mr. Paling, Mr. Harper Parker, Mr. Pease, Mr. Pielou, Lieut.-Colonel Rhodes, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Philip Richardson, Mr. Sitch, Mr. George Spencer, Captain Wallace, Mr. Wells, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Whiteley, Mr. Willey, Mr. David Williams, Mr John Williams, and Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Penalties Bill): Mr. William M. Adamson,
Colonel Sir Charles Burn, Mr. Ede, Major Entwistle, Mr. Harbord, Captain Sidney Herbert, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel, Mr. Sutcliffe, and Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[FIFTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Orders of the Day — NAVY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND REPAIRS, AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,832,8550, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, Grants-in-Aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): In making the customary introductory statement on Vote 10, I do not propose to go into it in any very great detail. It would be impossible to do so in the case of a Vote of this sort, which deals with such a multiplicity and diversity of interests all over the world. At this juncture, all that I wish to do is to sketch the outline of the Vote and emphasise its more important features, leaving questions of detail to be answered later and to be dealt with as they may arise in the course of the Debate. I would first endeavour to temper, and, perhaps, if I am lucky, to avert, hostile criticism, by drawing the attention of the Committee to the large and consistent reductions that we have made in this Vote since the War. In this financial year, 1923–4, we are asking for a sum of £3,832,850 for works, buildings, maintenance and repairs both at home and abroad. To get at the true figure that we are spending this year, we have to deduct from that certain sums. There are certain annual charges and obligations which, although they relate to works services carried out, or to grants approved in past years, have to be provided for in this Vote. There are also charges such as reconditioning war properties, and so on, which are purely War liabilities. Much the largest item in that list is the annuity in repayment of
advances under the Naval Works Act, 1895, which accounts for over £1,250,000. All of these commitments total to a sum of £1,370,238. Subtracting that from the total Vote asked for, and adding the Appropriations-in-Aid, which amount to £75,000, we get the real effective expenditure under this Vote, namely, £2,537,612.
I wish to compare that, first, with the total effective expenditure of last year, making the same additions and subtractions. Comparing it with last year, we show a reduction this year of £371,257. Comparing it with the last Vote of this sort before the War, namely, that for 1914–15, which, I think, will interest the Committee, we find that it is only up by 10 per cent. as compared with the Vote of 1914–15, and at a time when, as I would remind the Committee, the cost of works and buildings, and almost every other expenditure undertaken under this Vote, is 90 per cent. higher than it was in 1914. I think the Committee will agree with me in thinking that, if all Votes in all Services of the Crown were only 10 per cent. more than they were in the year 1914–15, this country would not have very much to complain of.
One of the chief lines of argument used against Vote 10 is that expenditure on works and buildings, on bricks and mortar, is diverting money from seagoing ships, and that, at a time when we are trying to cut down our expenditure to a certain sum, money spent on these Votes is circumscribing the efficiency of our sea going ships. Of course, the efficiency of the Fleet is, and must be, the prime necessity to be aimed at, and I wish to assure the Committee that it is quite impossible to separate the expenditure under Vote 10 from the total expenditure undertaken under the general Navy Estimates. The work done under the aegis of this Vote 10 is inextricably woven with the destinies of the Fleet. Let me take, first, the example of the ships. Vote 10 has to build the slips on which cur ships come into being. We have to build and maintain the docks, the locks, and the basins in which they are repaired. We have to dredge the channels to allow these ships to come to those docks and basins. We have to build and repair the workshops in which repairs are undertaken. We have to build and repair the lines and the roadways which serve those
workshops. We have to build and maintain the depots for ammunition, and for the thousand and one articles that are necessary to make a ship into a real fighting unit. Lastly, we have to build and maintain the fuel depots both at home and abroad, without which the British Navy would be immobile and utterly useless. In the same way we cater for the personnel of the Navy. We have to build and maintain all the instructional establishments for both officers and men. We have to build and maintain barracks, hospitals, canteens, recreation grounds and many other things, and I can say, with truth, that the well-being of the Navy in both material and personnel depends upon the activities of this Vote 10. I can assure the Committee that whenever an item under this Vote comes up to us to be adjudicated upon, the first question that is asked is whether it is necessary for the efficiency, the well-being or the safety of the Fleet, and by the answer it is invariably judged. As we now maintain only a one-Power standard, and our Fleet, so far as capital ships at all events are concerned, is limited, it is of vital importance that we should do two things. Firstly, we should do everything in our power to make the Fleet as efficient as possible, and, secondly, we should do everything in our power to make it as mobile as possible. I should be glad ii the Committee could find in this Vote a single item that does not aim at one of those two objects.
I want to take two groups of items under the head of efficiency. The first are those which make provision for the welfare of the men of the lower deck. The attainment of contentment, or if contentment be too strong a word, the absence of a legitimate grievance, is a big step towards efficiency. After the War, the Admiralty shared with the rest of the country that feeling of exalted optimism which, I am sorry to say, has turned out to be one of the most cynical legacies. Under the stress of that feeling of the War, we planned great schemes for the comfort and the betterment of the men of the lower deck. Also, under sheer financial necessity, we have had to drop a great deal of that programme. But I am glad to say that this year we have managed to include a fairly large number of new welfare items, and we ask the Committee to approve a fairly large number
which are already approved by the House of Commons and are what are called continuation items. In war time there is no doubt the sailor is a good deal more comfortable than the soldier, but in peace it is the reverse and very often the sailors are living under conditions which approximate very closely to the conditions they live under in war time. I hope when financial times are better, and we are able to put forward more proposals in this direction, the House of Commons will not grudge us money which is designed to smooth the lives of those men who are very often uncomfortable, and are in my opinion, at all events, a most uncomplaining body of men.
Under the heading of efficiency, I wish to take one other group of items, and that is the armament supply depots. I wish to say something about this, because these armament supply depots are very often criticised, and rightly, because the provision for them has increased since pre-War days, and the outport staff necessary for their upkeep has also increased, and anything that increases since pre-War days ought rightly to be criticised and examined. But I can give the Committee some very good reasons for this. The experience of the War forced us to adopt a good many new weapons which are a great deal more complicated than they used to be. Let me give the example of mines. It is a matter of history that at the outbreak of the War, this country was very deficient in mines, both in quantity and quality. We do not want that to happen again and we have in reserve a much larger number of mines than we used to have—a number that we hope will be sufficient if, unfortunately, war should ever come again. But we have many new weapons. We have the paravane, for which we are indebted to the inventive genius of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). We have depth charges and bombs of all sorts to provide stowage for. All these weapons are filled with a much more powerful explosive than we used to deal with in the old days. We used to have wet guncotton, a very safe and a very stable form of explosive, but to-day we deal with far more powerful things than wet guncotton, and on the top of that the advent of aircraft has made it absolutely imperative to strengthen these depots and make
them as impervious as possible to attack from aircraft. I hope when anyone criticises any expenditure on armament supply depots he will recollect those three points.
I now come to the question of mobility, and here we have the largest item of expenditure, namely, £914,000 for tanks for the stowage of oil fuel. For some years now we have been building up a reserve of these tanks for oil fuel both at home and abroad. We have continuously reviewed our requirements in the endeavour to bring down our total Estimates. We have continually cut down our requirements in the interest of economy. What we now ask for we regard as the irreducible minimum for safety. The necessary tanks in England and abroad are being proceeded with. Most of the objects for which we are asking for money in this Vote are continuation services already approved by this House, but this year we ask for permission to add to the number of these tanks at certain places. At home we ask for provision 'to add to the number at Glasgow, and abroad we ask for permission to add to the number at Malta, Aden, Ceylon, Rangoon and Singapore. All these places are on the route to the East. Up to about 1907 everyone in this country understood the duties of our Navy to be world-wide, for the protection of our trade and for the defence of our Empire. In those days we had squadrons in almost every part of the world, and particularly we always had a strong squadron on the China station, for from that station some of our greatest dominions—India, Australia, New Zealand—could be best protected and our multifarious interests in the East best safeguarded. But in about 1907 the growing menace of the Germany Navy compelled us gradually to concentrate in the North Sea, and after so many years of that concentration there are a great many people in this country who have got the idea into their minds that the true function of the British Navy is to guard our shores. I cannot too strongly denounce that idea. It never has been the function of our Navy, and that is proved because nearly every vital engagement fought by our Navy has been fought at some considerable distance from these
shores. The real function of the British Navy is to keep open the great sea routes for the safe passage of our trade and for the defence of our scattered Empire, and to do this we must be in a position to move our ships rapidly to any part of the world. In these days this is more important than ever it was before.
I have said we are now a one-Power standard and we cannot divide up the Fleet as we used to do in pre-War days. The Fleet must be kept intact and it must be capable of going wherever it is required. This Eastern route is the most important route of all and until it is ready we cannot guarantee the safety of our Dominions or adequately protect British interests in the East. Hon. Members opposite may ask whom are you going to fight? I say, without any hesitation whatever, no one. What we are asking for is purely defensive and not offensive, and if proof of that were needed it is given in the leisurely way in which we are going to work in building up this route to the East. It is an insurance, and a small one, for the integrity of our Empire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) is always rather anxious about the protection of these tanks. He assumes that it is rather easy to blow them to pieces or to set them on fire. I am happy to be able to assure him that all our experience goes to prove the contrary. There is only one recorded case of tanks having been fired. That occurred at Madras to two tanks, which were fired by the "Emden," but those tanks contained kerosene, and tanks in the near neighbourhood which were also shelled, and which contained the much heavier oil that we use in the Navy, did not ignite. There were many cases also of oilers being torpedoed, but in no case did they take fire. If the tanks are shattered by shell fire we have a system of saucers designed to catch the oil that may come out. If it is hostile aircraft that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of, I would remind him that none of these tanks are anywhere near a possibly hostile aerodrome, and if an enemy were going to attack the tanks they must go by means of surface craft. On other occasions, on many other Votes, my right hon. Friend is always rather sceptical about the use of these surface craft.
I now come, by the Eastern route, to Singapore. We are asking this year for a sum to enable us to develop a Naval base—

Captain HAY: Against whom?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Against nobody. It is for insurance. When a man insures his house, he does not have to specify, and he does not think, whether a match, a cigarette end or a lamp overturned is going to set the house on fire. He insures against the general risk of fire. When a man buys his daily insurance on the bookstall, he does not look at the front of every omnibus as a potential means of securing him with a headline next day; he rather looks at the back of the omnibus, and reads there, "Safety first." That is all we are asking the House for. We want to develop our base at Singapore and to be able to cater for the needs of modern capital ships. There have been many examples in history which demonstrate the supreme folly of concentrating a fleet far from a defended base. The Spanish Armada supplies one example; but we have a far better and more modern example in the Russian Fleet, under Admiral Rojestvensky, which met with such an untimely end. I should like to make it clear to the Committee, that there is nothing new in this idea of a defended base at Singapore.

Mr. NEWBOLD: Port Arthur!

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I was talking about Singapore. It has been defended since 1882, and all we are asking this Committee to do is to allow us to bring it up to date. It was intended to bring it up to date before the War, but, as I have said, all our energies were concentrated on the North Sea, and we could not do it. This work was approved by the Dominion Conference in 1921; it was strongly recommended by the Committee of Imperial Defence; it was approved by the late Cabinet; it has been approved by this Cabinet; and it is most strongly urged by the Dominions. The Washington Conference has made this work increasingly necessary at the present day. As the Committee knows, under the Treaty we are precluded from further developing Hong Kong and, at the present moment, we have not got a single dock in the Far East on British territory capable of taking
a bulged capital battleship. On the total sum foreshadowed in these Estimates, we have already cut down the amount by something like £1,500,000, bringing it down to about £9,500,000. This sum will be spread over a very considerable period, probably about 10 years. I have great hopes that the Dominions, which have a very direct interest in this work, will see their way to co-operate with us in this direction. I have tried to give the Committee an outline of this Vote. I hope I have not been too long, and I trust the Committee will see their way to let us have the Vote without any very great or undue delay.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
My hon. and gallant Friend need never fear wearying the House of Commons. He speaks with practical experience, as a very gallant naval officer, and also as a Parliamentarian of great ability. Therefore, in any Vote which he proposes to the Committee, everything that can be said in its favour will be said by him. In his opening remarks, he stated that this Vote was about 10 per cent. lower than pre-War. During the War, if I may touch on that point of his argument for a moment, there were enormous new works built. One would have thought that those works would have sufficed now we are at peace—or what we call peace. There has been a reduction in the personnel of the Navy, and we should have imagined that the Works Vote would have decreased with the personnel of the Navy. One remark of my hon. and gallant Friend will find an echo in every part of the Committee. That is, that the Committee will grudge no expenditure to secure the contentment and comfort of the officers and men of the Royal Navy.
I propose to deal very lightly with detail, and to go direct to the point with which my hon. and gallant Friend concluded his speech, namely, the new naval base at Singapore. I do not know where he got his information that it was proposed to spend large sums of money on this base before the War. I happen to have been at the Admiralty, and I was not aware of it. I did not know that we had brought in any Estimate, or that any proposals were made. Of course, it is a good while ago, and one's memory may be defective; but I was there, and I do not recollect any proposal for building a
naval base at Singapore. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who was then Prime Minister, states, it was, at any rate, never approved by any responsible authority, neither by the Admiralty nor by the Cabinet. The first question I would ask with regard to this new naval base is, has this matter been thought of in relation to the League of Nations? This is a new naval base at Singapore, costing, on the Estimate, something like £11,000,000, which, by the way, will certainly be exceeded before it is finished. That certainly is an act for the establishment of a naval establishment which would, I imagine, have been considered in relation to that solemn League to which Britain put her hand at Versailles. Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is very clear. I copied out the salient portion of it this morning. It says:
The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information is to the scale of their armaments, their military and naval air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes.
This is a base which is adaptable to warlike purposes. As my hon. and gallant Friend said to-day, it is a base for war purposes. Britain, the British Empire, British statesmen, and the statesmen of the British Empire have set their seal to the League of Nations. Japan has also set her seal to the League of Nations. Have you entered in a consultation with Japan in regard to this base at Singapore? If not, you must have flouted the League of Nations. To my mind it is a very serious thing, after this terrible War, that that solemn covenant of the League of Nations should be treated as a scrap of paper, and should be a kind of sepulchre for the pledges which have been so freely made. I would remind the Government that the present Prime Minister was one of the signatories to the League, and also the past Prime Minister. Therefore, surely, this is not the moment to enter upon an enormously expensive new naval base in the Far East without some consultation as covenanted by the League we have so solemnly approved. My hon. and gallant Friend said that owing to the Washington Treaty we were not permitted to develop Hong Kong. Then, I ask, do you propose to get behind the Washington Treaty by developing Singapore?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: indicated dissent.

Mr. LAMBERT: That is a very fair question to ask. The First Lord of the Admiralty said—

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: It was clearly excluded. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Agreement, he will see it was clearly excluded.

Mr. LAMBERT: As I understand, it was not permissible under the Washington Agreement to develop Hong Kong. Then, you may develop somewhere else, somewhere near. That seems to me to be perilously near going behind the Washington Treaty. Having the horrors and terrors of the late War so strongly in my mind, I deplore this new race for armaments and naval bases.
More than that, having said this from the moral point of view, I come to the strategical point of view. What was the lesson we learned from the late War? Whatever may have been the late Lord Fisher's faults, he did concentrate the Fleet in home waters. His was a policy of concentration. To-day, according to the new strategic policy of the Admiralty, we are to have stations and establishments all over the world. They will be very vulnerable in time of war, and extremely expensive in time of peace. I have said more than once from this Box that the Admiralty during the last three or four years, have laid broad and deep the foundations of great expenditure. Even in this country, though the personnel of the Navy has been reduced from 150,000 to about 100,000, we have actually got one more dockyard than we had before the War. Rosyth, as a protection against the German menace, was built at a cost of something like £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. Now we are to have Singapore, at a cost of £11,000,000. Singapore is about 7,000 miles away.
I should like the First Lord, or whoever is going to reply for the Admiralty, to tell us how they propose to maintain communication between the home country and this new naval base, 7,000 miles away. The Grand Fleet was based on Great Britain, a very mighty and very highly industrialised country; but, as I understand from my hon. and gallant Friend, the route to reach Singapore is to be by Malta, Aden, Ceylon and Rangoon. I
hope the British Fleet will not be sent to Singapore to fight any possible enemy, but I think, if it is, that all these naval bases, all these oil fuel bases, will be liable to attack. When my hon. and gallant Friend said that the "Emden" had only damaged two depots in Madras, the German fleet, fortunately, was very quickly bottled up; it did not escape Who and what you are going to fight against in the future, of course, I cannot say. Then I come to the point that we are to have a very leisurely construction of this base. Whatever you do in naval matters, leisurely construction is the most fatal and extravagant course. If you want to build ships, you must build them quickly or they will be out of date. I remember being at the Admiralty when Rosyth was started, and we made a special provision that if the base was built quicker than the contract date the contractors should have a special bonus. Do you really suggest that in a time of emergency, a time of war—and though I hate to talk about war, yet when we have enormous Estimates of £130,000,000 for the fighting forces we have to think and talk about war—does anyone believe that with a one-Power standard you are to send that one-Power standard to Singapore in time of war? That seems to me to be an idea that might be evolved at Colney Hatch or somewhere like that.
5.0 P.M.
Take capital ships. The Admiralty first build their ships, and then they say, Now we have no docks in which to repair the ships. Therefore we must build docks." It is a very vicious circle of expenditure. If this base is to be finished at a cost of £9,000,000—there has been a reduction in the Estimate, and I, having had considerable experience of these matters, know that these Estimates are generally elusive, and that docks cost far more than they are expected to cost—this base is to be finished in 10 years' time. Who knows whether the capital ships and the docks will not then be obsolete? What enemy do you really expect to fight at Singapore? In the old days, when we had a two-Power standard, it was against France and Russia. Then it was two keels to one against Germany. What enemy are you to meet at Singapore, and how are you to meet him 7,000 miles away? My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty said
it is a very important matter for the Dominions, and he refers particularly to Australia, but has Australia been consulted? Do the Australians propose to bear any proportion of the cost.

Commander BELLAIRS: The Imperial Conference is coming.

Mr. LAMBERT: But will the Imperial Conference bring with it any Dominion money? That is the real point I ask. If the Imperial Conference is coming, why not postpone committing the House of Commons to the construction of this naval base till afterwards? Ten million pounds of money is not a small sum, and it is not only £10,000,000 spent there, but the base must have a garrison to defend it. You cannot have a great naval base without defence. You must have guns and an army, or, at any rate, some military establishment there.
I honestly say, so far as I am concerned, I do not believe any case has been made out for committing the House of Commons at the present moment to this naval base at such an enormous cost. I would point out to the Committee that when you have all these bases scattered all over the world—oil fuel and other kinds of depots—it means vast expenditure to the taxpayer, without, I think, a commensurate result. It must be recollected that, if you have even a small oil-fuel depot, that depot has to be defended. It must have people to look after it, and these same people have to have their opposite number at the Admiralty. The Admiralty establishment is greatly above the pre-War standard. The Admiralty staff at the present time is 3,000, against about 2,000 before the War. All these naval establishments are a most wasteful form of activity. In the interests of the British taxpayer—who, one would imagine, had a bottomless pocket—I ask the Government to postpone this matter and let this whole question of Singapore be examined and, indeed, let the whole question of the fighting forces and their relation to each other be examined by a strong, competent Commission or Committee. If each Department is going into riotous expenditure in competition with the others, what will the end of it be? I say it is absolute madness at the present moment to spend £11,000,000 on Singapore and to leave London, the heart of the Empire, unguarded against aircraft attacks. Therefore, so far as I am concerned,
I shall move a reduction in this Vote, and I move it, first, because the League of Nations has been ignored; secondly, because I think it is a wrongheaded method of expenditure to scatter our forces instead of concentrating them; thirdly, because the new base at Singapore would be a hostage to any possible enemy; and, fourthly, because it is a diversion of defence from the heart of the Empire of Britain to a place 7,000 miles away.

Captain HAY: I have read somewhere in Ruskin that at one time a beautiful valley between two towns was filled up to make a railway, and after all the smoke and the noise and the spoiling of the beauty, the total result was that any fool could get from town A to town B in half the time it took before, and any fool in town B could get to town A in the same time. After hearing the speech of the Financial Secretary I wondered what advantage it is going to be to us or to anyone when we are to pay £9,500,000 of the taxpayers' money and spoil the beautiful harbour of Singapore. I wish to ask again, against whom are we fortifying Singapore? I have asked that already and I received a partial answer, an answer in the sense that it parried my attack but not an answer in the sense that it gave us any information. We command the seas to Malta, to Aden, we command India, we command Australia. Again I ask, against whom are we going to fortify Singapore? Surely not against Australia, not against India, not against America. We are not spending money, I suppose, for nothing. We are going to spend £10,000,000, according to the present estimate, but we know right well that that estimate is to be swelled. In the first place, we are gang to work there in a very unhealthy climate, and, having finished these works, they have to be garrisoned. That means the occupation of Singapore by a permanent garrison of at least 2,000 artillery, to say nothing about the other services. It is not only the building of these stations at a great expenditure that we are going to have. There is something we ought to draw attention to here. We have had the Washington Conference, which was drawn together for the limitation of armaments, and now the Financial Secretary tells us that we are
forced to fortify Singapore by the Washington Convention. I think these are words which ought to be explained or withdrawn. What is the sense of saying that we tied ourselves not to increase the fortification at Hong Kong and then going a thousand miles further south and putting up a new fortification at Singapore?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: And west.

Captain HAY: South and west. This I regard as a cynical attack upon the Washington Peace Conference. Are we to blame this Conference, which was set up for the limitation of armaments, for the fortification of Singapore? Are we to hide behind the Conference for limitation of armaments and to say that that has caused us to fortify Singapore? And supposing Singapore is west as well as south, what is the point of bringing out that it is west? I have been in both places. Singapore may be south or west from Hong Kong, but why stress its westerliness? Are you trying to show that, being west, it cannot be east, and therefore that Japan does not come within our purview? If we take out an insurance, it is because there are such things as motor cars, trains and buses, If we fortify Singapore, we are not doing it for the pleasure of throwing away money. We are brought back to the question, why are we fortifying Singapore? Are we doing it against America or against Japan? As one who shared some of the labours and the dangers of the late War, it surprises me that men can stand up in this House and speak for hours not under the category of peace but under the category of war. Were we not bidden to fight the last War because it was to be the last war, and what right has any hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman to speak about the next War? Surely we fought the last War to end war, and if we did not, then men were called to the colours under false pretences. I feel that we on this side at least are going to keep these things before the workers, and before our constituents.
If we are looking forward to having merry times in 1924 or 1934, it is time, during the peace, for the working classes of the country to ask their rulers what is the meaning of it all. If we want money for housing or old age pensions we are asked "Where is the money to come
from?" Now this House contemplates spending £10,000,000 estimated, which will swell easily to £20,000,000, and we are not asking ourselves if we are justified in spending this money. The Minister of Health can only spare £6 per house for 20 years as a bonus on house building, and we are prepared to throw away £10,000,000, much of which will find its bed in the mudswamps of the harbour of Singapore. We are going to spend our money on buildings and garrisons in that pestilential and immoral cesspool, for what and against whom? [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny) is smiling. I do not know at what particular part of my speech he gets funny. We are going to waste the health and morality of a large garrison in this pestilential and immoral cesspool.
This is the point which we are up against. It will be regarded as a direct challenge by the yellow men of the Far East, particularly by the Japanese. Mention was made to-day about the untimely end of a Russian Admiral in the Japanese sea. That Admiral came to an untimely end for the simple reason that he was far away from his base, 15,000 miles away from his base. As I look into the future I might also see another fleet coming to an untimely end in a Japanese sea because it is far from its base. We cannot look to the future with any satisfaction or sense of peace. We are not preparing the way for peace in the future by this Vote. We are going in the way of destruction and misery and not in the paths of peace.

Mr. PENNY: I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), in which he stated that the view was not held before the War that Singapore would be a great naval base. We all know that in questions such as these there is great diversity of opinion. Having lived in Singapore for 20 years, I can say that the great feeling out there was that it would be a wonderful naval base for our Pacific station. The right hon. Gentleman also laid great stress on the fact that he hated war. There is no Member of this House who does not hold the same view, but it would be suicidal for a country such as ours if we were not prepared for war, and to have a "wait and see" policy in a matter such as this would be criminal. For that reason I think that he is wrong in taking the view that we should not be prepared.
The hon. Member for Cathcart (Captain Hay) asked why I was smiling at a portion of his speech. I was smiling at the fact that he was so very inconsistent. He started his speech by describing this "beautiful island" of Singapore, and he finished it by calling it a "pestilential and immoral cesspool." I feel in a perfect state of health at the present time. I spent 20 years in that immoral cesspool, and I feel none the worse for it. There is an hon. Member on the other side of the Committee who, I am sure, will speak in this Debate, who has lived there as long as I have, who is known for his virility, and who, like rubber out there, is also known for his great resiliency. Although we are the greatest friends, it is possible that he will put a different view to the Committee. Personally, I think that the decision of the Admiralty to establish a naval base at. Singapore is an extremely wise one. The Estimate of £11,000,000, which will be spread over a great number of years, will be a very cheap premium of insurance for our safety in the future. It will also, I think, act as a great safeguard for peace in the future, so long as it is necessary for us to maintain ourselves as a great sea Power, and I presume that we shall have to do that until the world at large is educated up to accepting the principles of the League of Nations.

Captain HAY: Or the New Testament.

Mr. PENNY: Whichever you like. It is all the same thing. It is a matter of Christianity and brotherhood, and I want to see it brought about as soon as possible, just as much as any Member of this House. But until the world is ready to accept the principle of the League of Nations, and to have a reduction in armaments and a cessation of warfare it is up to us to be prepared. We have seen strikingly illustrated by the last War the changing of the balance of power. It changes quickly as regards naval matters, and it was transferred from the North Sea to the Pacific. We have the Japanese fleet there, and the main portion of the American fleet and our Dominion Australia at once realised that she was unprotected and asked our protection, and we should not be doing our duty to our Dominions if we did not protect them in that way by having a base which would insure the safety, not only of the Dominions, not only of our
trade routes, but in the event of war, which I hope will never come about, but for which we must be prepared.
The position of Singapore which is situated at the extreme south of the Malay Peninsula is unique and ideal both geographically and strategically as a base for the China, Australia and East Indies Stations, and for that reason no better place could be found to establish a base. The surrounding islands lend themselves admirably to artillery defence. The waters are such that they could be mined and would be useful for submarine work in the event of war. The harbour itself is a most wonderful place for the anchorage of ships of the biggest size, and the graving docks can take in practically the largest ships in the world at the present day. There is a breakwater there, to which small craft can always go in times of storm and stress, but I do not think that it would be possible to take the capital ships there unless the Government were to go in for a very expensive scheme of dredging, and to that I should be very much opposed because I do not think it would do nor do I think it necessary.
There is great diversity of opinion as to whether the work there should be of a permanent or only of a temporary nature. I would strongly advocate that if work is to be done it should be of a permanent nature, for the climate there is of such a character that anything that is temporary deteriorates very quickly and goes to pieces, and the result is that the final cost is always greater than the initial cost though it may seem bigger when you put up a permanent structure. Apart from warlike reasons, Singapore, as hon. Gentlemen know, was acquired in the year 1819 by Sir Stamford Raffles, and the trade of the hinterland at the present time comes to about £50,000,000 sterling, while Singapore itself has become one of the largest entrepôts for trade, and coaling stations in the world. It produces more than half of the rubber of the world and approximately 40 per cent. of the tin. Therefore, apart from all naval considerations, I do think that the Government are doing right in establishing a base there which will protect our trade routes and also protect this great valuable outpost of Empire. I think that they have showed great wisdom and foresight in deciding upon this as a naval base and I
do not ask them to postpone their operations, but I do ask them to go ahead.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I, like the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny), have spent 20 years in this immoral cesspool of Singapore, and, if I can lay any claim to the virility for which he has given me credit, I only wish that I could exchange it for the eloquence with which he has delighted the Committee. But I think that when he stated that Singapore was a healthy place he overlooked the fact that he and I were hard at work from morning to night every day of our lives, for five and six years on end, and I have to suggest that there would be a very different kind of employment for men stationed at a naval base. These men are not as a rule kept hard at work in places like Singapore, as we were, and it is a case of Satan finding work for idle hands to do, and thus resulting in these people finding the climate of Singapore enervating and demoralising.
I do not think that the argument of my hon. Friend will hold when he referred to the cheap premium of £10,000,000 which we are asked to spend. That is what we were told before the last War. We were told that if you want peace you must prepare for war, that it was an insurance against this, that and the other, and the result of all this talk before the War is that to-day we are saddled with a debt of something like £8,000,000,000. Is that what you are going to insure against? I do suggest that what this country should aim at is not so much insurance, and not so much waiting for other nations to see that peace is the only solution, but that we ought to take the lead in the League of Nations and show an example to the League of Nations by cutting down our expenditure on armaments as much as we possibly can.
My hon. Friend referred to the founder of Singapore, Sir Stamford Baffles. He overlooked one thing which Sir Stamford Baffles said when he went there, which was that he went there for trade and not for territory. As I sat here a month or so ago, and listened to the solemn, the almost sanctimonious, accents of the First Lord, as he intoned his sermon on a mount that this country would have to provide in order to maintain the Navy during the current year, I could not help feeling
that it was not so much the First Lord who was talking as the first lord of the universe, the all-highest. That is the attitude which is taken: "This is the irreducible minimum; you must accept it." They hand out their tables of stone on which are graven the sums we have to pay and when we are to pay. They lay down the law. But they do not tell us how we are to get the money When I listened to the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty on that occasion and he referred to Singapore, I first began to doubt the omniscience, omnipotence, the good judgment and the sense of right and wrong of the first lord of the universe, as he appeared to me to be at the beginning of his speech.
I wish to say a word or two about the Washington Treaty. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) that this proposal is an infringement of the Washington Treaty. It is all very well to say that the Washington Treaty applied only to longitude 110° East of East. Was there any discussion at Washington? Was there any suggestion that as soon as we signed that Treaty we would go round the corner, five degrees West of that longitude, and start this enormous undertaking at Singapore? If there was no such suggestion, this is an infringement of the spirit, if not of the deed, of the Washington Treaty. To what, is it going to lead? It will simply encourage the United States to do exactly the same thing. I have here an article in the "China Telegraph," in which a whole page is taken up in stating what the United States will do in reply to our establishing a naval base at Singapore, and that is to develop Pearl Harbour, in Honolulu, 2,000 mikes West of San Francisco. That will be a new base of operations.
You cannot create stations of this kind without immediately encouraging other nations to do likewise. I do not know what Japan will do. She is hedged in by this Treaty somehow, and apparently cannot go anywhere to respond to our advance. The creation of this new base is contrary to the spirit of the Washington Treaty, and I urge that we should hold our hands until we have more information as to the necessity of the base. The objects of the Washington Treaty were to contribute to the maintenance of general peace and to reduce the
burden of competition in armaments. Under Article 19 it was stated that the status quo at the time of signing the Treaty should be maintained. The status quo is not being maintained by embarking upon this Singapore scheme. It is also laid down in the Treaty that if circumstances were to change the nations who were signatories to the Treaty should meet in conference and consider matters. For those reasons it is essential that the House should not sanction the beginning of this vast expenditure.
I have alluded to the conditions of health at Singapore. I think it is an enervating and demoralising climate and is the last place in the world to be chosen for a naval base. Even in the case of Hong Kong it has been found necessary to provide in Wei-hai-wei a place to which to send men to recuperate every year. Singapore has a much more demoralising and enervating climate than Hong Kong; it is much more like a hothouse. It has been said that the cost of this scheme has been reduced from £11,000,000 to £9,500,000. I have had something to do with big works at Singapore. I was a member of the Harbour Board for 10 or 12 years, during which time most of the big works were done. You can never find bottom there. I do not know whether Singapore is suffering from something which is due to the glacial age, but the fact is that there is mud there with no bottom. In one particular work they thought they had reached bottom. They bored, and assumed that they had got to a sound foundation, but as soon as the monoliths were put into the ground, they went through it, for it was only a crust. The whole scheme had to be modified and the ultimate cost was something like double what had been anticipated. If you start this scheme and complete it at a cost of less than £20,000,000 you will be jolly lucky.
I join the right hon. Member for South Molten in asking who is responsible for the scheme? On whose dictum is it put forward? Are they the same people who sent Admiral Cradock to his death at Coronel? Are they the people who split up the fleet and murdered Cradock? Of course Mr. Winston Churchill is the only man who is always right and he denies the charge, but the bulk of opinion supports what I have said. Who is responsible for this scheme? Can we rely upon them? Who is the genius responsible?
The whole scheme is unnecessary. I differ from the last speaker. We have been in Singapore together for many years. He has come back to this country with the war mind and I have come back with the peace mind. We want to get rid of the idea of another war. I do not believe in this insurance. I do not believe that the way to get peace is to prepare for war. If we want peace we must prepare for peace, and we are not preparing for peace by embarking to the extent of £20,000,000 on this scheme in Far Eastern waters.

Captain Viscount CURZON: I have been much interested in listening to the speeches this afternoon. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced the Vote made an excellent speech. One of his remarks struck me as very odd. He said that a sailor was more comfortable in a warship than was the soldier in the trenches during the War. I ask him to cast his mind back. After all he is better able than any other officer in this House to speak of the conditions under which the crews of destroyers lived in the Grand Fleet during the late War. I am sure he would not attempt to contrast those conditions in any way with the conditions in the Army, for I am certain that the conditions under which the officers and men during the War had to live were not very far removed from the conditions in the front line trenches in France.
As to the development of Singapore, I was much interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for South Molton. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was a Member of the Board of Admiralty which started Rosyth. I ask him to go back to the story of Rosyth. He will remember that when Rosyth was started a good deal of work was done there. Then a sort of creeping paralysis overtook the scheme, and gradually it was damped down until practically no work was carried on. The War came. What happened? We had to go ahead with Rosyth, men working overtime and double time in day and night shifts in order to get the dock ready for the use of the Fleet. The amount of money which had to be spent in the long run, I am confident, though I have not the figures, was about double the amount which had been estimated for in the first instance. That was simply and solely because the work
did not go on during a period of years. That was not the end of the story. It was not until 1917 that the Fleet was able to go to Rosyth and use it. In fact, during the first two or three years of the War, the Grand Fleet was very - much hampered because it had not a proper place to which to go, and because, when ships required to be docked, they had to be sent to an emergency base at Invergordon, or else to home ports, north-about, to Plymouth or Portsmouth or Chatham. I hope that the House will not forget that lesson.
Hon. Members have asked, "Why do we want to prepare for war?" The reason is this: If we do not prepare for the time of need, should it ever come—God knows, there is not a Member on this side of the House who wants to go to war again, for we have all had enough of it!—if we are weak, we invite attack. If we show that we are strong enough to defend ourselves when attacked, people will think twice before they attack us. Hon. Members say, "Oh, yes, but the last war was a war to end wars." I have heard that story often enough. I hoped that it was a war to end war. At the same time, if a Labour Government were in power and this country were attacked, the Labour Government, just the same as any other Government, would have to defend the country. Suppose that a Labour Government were in power in five or ten years' time, and it found that proper provision had not been made for the efficiency of the Fleet, in fact that it was not able to use the Fleet, what would it say of a Conservative Government which had not fulfilled its trust?
In regard to Singapore, the interests of our Dominions and of India are sometimes overlooked. This is not a question solely for ourselves in this country; it is an Imperial question, which will no doubt be considered at the Imperial Conference. If you look to the Far East now what do you find? If we wanted to send a Fleet there to-morrow there is no base to which the Fleet could go. If you wanted to establish a base there you would have to do what was done in the last War, that is, pack up net defences and everything else on steamers, and begin the towing of a floating dock from this country to some obscure island in the Pacific. All that would take an enormous time. During its passage East the floating base and dock would be subject to
attack, and it is possible that it would never reach its destination, apart from the risks of bad weather. I hold that the Admiralty are doing the only possible thing by providing a base at what is described as the Gateway of the Far East.
The last speaker stated that the United States were considering the construction of a base at Pearl Harbour, Honolulu. What on earth has it got to do with us whether the Americans construct a base at Honolulu or not? I hope they will if they want one. Personally I am convinced that an American base at Honolulu would be a very good thing, not only for this country, but from the point of view of the Empire, and I hope we shall see one. The position in the Far East at the moment is that we have no base there and neither have the United States. We do not want to go to war with the Japanese; we do not contemplate war with them for one moment, but, at the same time, they are a very great naval power and the Admiralty have got to consider this question not only from the point of view of the Empire but from the point of view of world power. As I have said, the Americans, like ourselves, have no-base in the Far East, and it comes to this, that Japan, if she wished to go to war—we hope she will not, and there is no indication that she ever will—but if she did so. Japan could do anything she liked in the Far East and we could do practically nothing to prevent her.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton alluded to the strategic point of view and to what he termed Lord Fisher's concentration in home waters. Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers that Lord Fisher concentrated the Fleet in home waters in order to meet a particular menace. That particular menace no longer exists, and what you have now to be ready to do, should war ever come, is to use our Navy, not in the narrow seas, not in the North Sea, but on the other side of the world if necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said something to the effect that the Fleet could not, in future wars, leave these shores—that it is to be tied to these shores. What is the good of that? Is the Fleet to remain here while a hostile fleet is attacking India, or taking possession of Australia or New Zealand? Surely the right hon. Gentleman would
not have tolerated that when he was at the Admiralty. He would do what any Board of Admiralty do, whether Conservative, Liberal or Labour. I am perfectly certain they would all do the same thing. They would send a British fleet to seek out the hostile fleet and destroy them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or be destroyed!"] Or be destroyed; but if you give the Navy what is necessary for it, I do not think you would find a British fleet so very easy to destroy.
A question has been asked as to the numbers of the garrison in Singapore. I wish to ask the First Lord whether the defences of the harbour have really been thought out, because that defence will have to be not in one Department nor two, but in three, and it involves aircraft defences as well. I do hope the First Lord will be able to give us a little more detailed information as to what he proposes to construct at. Singapore than has so far been given us. For instance, I am not quite clear whether it is proposed to construct a dockyard on the scale of Rosyth—a first-class yard—or whether it is proposed to construct a yard on the lines of Hong Kong or Simonstown. I should be grateful for any little information which can be given us in that respect. The hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Penny), who spoke with knowledge and authority, having lived a great number of years at Singapore, said capital ships could not go there until the harbour was dredged. I ask the First Lord to confirm or deny that statement. It is an important factor in the general consideration of the question, and I am not sure whether the statement is correct or not.
The one thing I should like to impress upon the Committee is this. Unless the Fleet has a first-class yard in the Far East, it has absolutely no base to go to there, and therefore I hope the Committee will support the Admiralty in their proposals regarding Singapore. In my opinion, it is absolutely vital for the mobility not only of our own Fleet, but of any possible allies we may have, supposing we had a war in the Far East with any possible enemy you may conceive. I do not believe any fleet could cross the Pacific Ocean under conditions of modern war. The only way in which they could ever be able to get into that
theatre of war would be by going across the Atlantic through the Mediterranean, and along our chain of bases. Therefore, I hope the Admiralty will proceed with their scheme, and that the Committee will look upon it as an insurance—not a preparation for war but an insurance that we are doing at least something to see that a war does not come.

Mr. ASQUITH: I should like to preface anything I have to say, if I may be allowed to do so, by warmly complimenting the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this Vote to-night on the admirable manner in which he discharged what is always a very difficult and responsible duty. After a long experience, as long as almost anybody's, of Admiralty administration, I am always pre-disposed in favour of the considered judgment of the Admiralty upon technical and strategic matters. They have nothing to do with policy. Policy is a matter for the Cabinet and the Government, but in regard to the Department over which they preside, my experience is that, on the whole, they are very well and soundly advised. That is my natural predisposition. But I am bound to say that, as regards this particular proposal, I view it with very grave apprehension, both on strategic and financial grounds. There are one or two other considerations also which are very material, and with which I shall deal in a moment.
I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman to suggest that some scheme of this kind or of a similar kind had found favour in days gone by before the War. The memory of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molten (Mr. Lambert) entirely fails him on that point, and, having presided for nearly ten years over the Committee of Imperial Defence, I can say that no such scheme ever found favour with them. It may have been suggested. All kinds of schemes were suggested at the Admiralty, where a fertile imagination, as well as a great degree of expertness, was always putting forward one place or another as a place it was desirable to fortify for safeguarding the trade of the Empire. I have no doubt in the course of those many suggestions Singapore found a place, not, however, as far as my memory serves me, in the ambitious sense of this
proposal that it should become a naval base on which £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 is to be expended and which is to become part of our permanent chain, if I may so describe it, of fixed and immobile Imperial defences. That, however, is a small point, and relates only to the history of the past.
I join with the noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) in asking for, and I am sure the First Lord will give a rather fuller account than any the House of Commons have yet received, of the genesis of this scheme, and the naval advice upon which it has been put forward and commended as to the points—quite apart from the expenditure incurred in the structural establishment of this new naval base—of what will be the nature of the garrison necessary for its defence, and whether due account has been taken of those local conditions which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Darbishire) with his intimate knowledge of the spot has given? These have a very direct practical bearing upon the length of time which these operations will take, if carried out, upon their cost, and upon their permanency.
Further, I should like to know, and this is perhaps a more important point than either, what strategic advice the Admiralty got in the matter? In the course of my administrative experience I have had the advantage, which the Admiralty had in those days and which it has now, of the counsel of greatest naval experts and I am perfectly certain—as certain as that I stand by this Box at this moment—that if a proposal of this kind had been put forward to Lord Fisher or Sir Arthur Wilson or any of the great naval strategists and architects whom I have known it would have been rejected by them. It is not merely a question of where, having regard to the political conditions of the moment and the immediate future, we are to concentrate the Fleet. We changed in my time the whole base of the Fleet from the Mediterranean to the North Sea. We did so advisedly, and as everybody will now agree, wisely, because the centre of gravity, if you may use such an expression—the centre of polemical naval gravity—had shifted, when on the one hand we had an Entente with France and, on the other hand, were faced with the menace of a growing German fleet. That has nothing to do with the larger strategic
question. Changes of this sort we must; make in view of the political situations of the time.
6.0 P.M.
It is a complete mistake to suppose, and here I think I am in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the function of the Fleet is limited or conditioned in any way by its base for the time being. The object of the Fleet is to obtain and retain the command of the seas. That is what we did during the War, and when the history of the War comes to be written—written I mean with a true sense of perspective and not as viewed through many distorting and refractive glasses—when the history of the War comes to be written with proper perspective and proportion, it will be found, I do not hesitate to say, that the ultimate success of the Allies was due to our possession and retention of the command of the seas. I make that statement without, in any way, depreciating or disparaging the work of the Army—I need hardly say that—but what ultimately broke down the Central Powers was the fact that after the first two or three months of the War, at any rate after the Emden had finished its meteoric career, the British Fleet had command of the seas in every part of the world—not merely in the North Sea, not merely in the Mediterranean, but in the Pacific, and in all those outlying parts of the world. Not only was the German High Fleet bottled up in its ports, with the one single adventure of the battle of Jutland, but there was not a German cruiser, there was not a German merchant ship, that sailed safely, or attempted to sail safely, over the seas of the world, simply be cause we had got, in the largest and, if I may use the expression, the most fluid sense, complete command of the sea. It does not depend on your base, it does not depend on where, for the time being, your point of concentration may be. What you want is—what we had, and what I hope we shall always retain—that power of complete mobility, wisely and well directed, with strategic prescience and tactical skill, which, in my judgment, at any rate, won us the War. I do not attach myself any great importance, or at any rate commanding importance, to the establishment of naval bases, and, in regard to this particular bane, I think it is open to very serious
objections, even from a strategical point of view.
In the first place, it is placed at an enormous distance from what is, after all, its ultimate source of supply, of reinforcement—the home country. I will not say that its establishment is a breach of the conditions of the Treaty of Washington. I do not think it is a breach of the terms, because the Treaty of Washington defines geographically the limits within which the self-denying ordinance as to the establishment of new naval bases was to be carried out. But I do say that the Treaty of Washington has a very direct bearing upon the matter, because, although it may not be a breach or an infringement, yet it certainly appeared to me at the time that the intention and object of the Treaty, as regards all those who made themselves parties to it, was to limit and restrict, except in an obvious, and urgent, and indisputable case of necessity, the construction and creation of new fortified places in the Pacific and that part of the world. At any rate, it was so understood, and, from that point of view alone, I think this is a proposal which ought to be looked at many times over—and I hope it has been—and with a special regard to that which I may call the moral or ethical side of the situation.
But why is this base to be established at Singapore? I am not going to repeat the question which was put with so much force by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton: Against whom are you proceeding? What enemy do you contemplate which makes it necessary to establish a base in that part of the world? That is a difficult question to answer, because the answer which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave, and which I have no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty will give, is that we are not aiming at anybody. Therefore, if that be so, your sole justification for the establishment of this base must be that it puts you in a better position, not for aggression or annexation, not for any forward movement or adventure, but that it puts you in a better position to protect your sea-borne trade in that part of the world and possibly, to defend your Dominions—there are only two concerned, Australia and New Zealand—against possible attack. Let us dismiss the
matter by simply saying that if that be so, I think this proposal might very well be deferred until you have had your Imperial Conference, and consulted with the Dominions, and taken their view, and seen whether or not they insist, or, if that is too strong a word, whether they suggest as essential for their protection and defence the establishment of a base of this kind. There is no urgency.
The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea said it is a terrible thing to think that we have no base in the Far East in which our colossal new ships, the super-Dreadnoughts, with their gigantic draft and their enormous scale, can lie for repair and so forth. Nor will you have under this scheme until at least 10 years have elapsed. If there be an urgent necessity, such as obsesses the imagination of the Noble Lord, for the construction of these docks, why proceed with them in this dilatory and leisurely fashion?

Mr. DUNCAN: They will be obsolete by then.

Mr. ASQUITH: I am coming to that. I hope the Noble Lord will still be alive, but I am not at all sure that I shall, at the time when this dock, if it is ever proceeded with, arrives at completion, but, in the meantime, during the whole of my life, at any rate, unless I exceed the span the psalmist has alloted for us all, I must lie awake at night thinking and trembling—

Sir F. BANBURY: Begin at once!

Mr. ASQUITH: I will start to-night-trembling at the spectre, which the Noble Lord has conjured up with so much vivid imagination, of our being without a single base in the Far East in which our Dreadnoughts can lie. Ten years is a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury with his intimate knowledge of the subject, drew a very lurid picture of harbour construction at Singapore, of monoliths disappearing in the mud, which it would take months and perhaps years to construct, and his anticipation was that, so far from spending £9,000,000, you will probably spend £20,000,000 before you have finished with this job. The hon. Member for Kingstonon-Thames (Mr. Penny), who preceded
him, also spoke with knowledge of the subject. In fact, we are singularly fortunate in having heard two experts, both of whom have spent 20 years of their life in this more or less enervating climate. They do not seem to be the worse for it physically or intellectually, and although my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cathcart (Captain Hay) said something about a moral cesspool, I see no reason to think that they have been in any way contaminated. But £20,000,000 is the estimate of my hon. Friend, spread over a period of 10 years. What for? In order that at last the homeless Colossuses which at present wander about the high seas, according to the imagination of the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea—I thought they were better employed—may at last find a resting place in which they can be docked and repaired.
What about the Colossuses themselves? What about them? Is there anybody here in this Committee who, so far as his prevision can pierce into the probabilities of the future—is there any man in any quarter of the House—who really believes that 10 years hence those ships, or anything like those ships, will be the dominating factors—which I agree they are now; I am not saying we were not right in building within the limits of the Treaty of Washington—in naval warfare? When the Committee reflects upon the enormous and revolutionary changes which, even during the time of the War, were made—poison gas, the development of the submarine, the extension of aerial warfare—anyone who reflects upon these things and who knows or realises, as he ought to realise, that at this moment a very large part of the scientific ingenuity of the world, chemical, physical, mechanical, is being devoted not only to improving but to transforming and to revolutionising the instruments of war, does anyone think it is a wise thing to bank, as it were, on the "Dreadnought" or on any other ship or any other instrument of destruction that we now possess being, 10 years hence, still an important and predominating ingredient of war? I say it is a speculation, it is even a gamble, which rests upon a very slender foundation of probability.
Why cannot you go back once more to the old strategic policy? Why cannot you
continue to protect your sea-borne trade, not only in the Pacific and those regions, but all over the world, as we have done hitherto, without establishing anything in the nature of a base of this kind in distant seas? In the War we had no such base. As I pointed out a few moments ago, we made those seas perfectly safe highways for our own commerce and our own ships. In the War, what was it that enabled the Americans to land in France, and to strike the splendid and formidable blows which they did in the concluding months of the campaign? The British Fleet—the power of the British Fleet to command the Atlantic without any base of any kind in that part of the world. So long as you have your Fleet as it has been, as I hope it is, and certainly as it ought to be, you do not see any base of this kind in any of these outlying parts of the world.
I said at the beginning that I attach—and I attach because I have experienced it, valued it, and profited by it, in those anxious years before the War when we built up the Fleet—the greatest importance to the considered judgment of the advisers of the Admiralty. I confess I have not heard yet any sufficient case made out for this absolutely new departure, costly, uncertain, precarious, in my opinion wholly unwarranted by any proved necessity, and I think the Committee is entitled, before this Vote is passed, to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty for a full statement of the advice on which the Admiralty has acted, and the reason, if there be any, why a final decision in this matter should not be postponed, as I think it ought, until it has been maturely considered by representative conference, in which all the Dominions take part.

Commander BELLAIRS: After hearing the last speech, and such of the speeches that have been delivered from the cross benches, I am driven to the conclusion that Opposition means pessimism. Perhaps it is because I am a supporter of the Government that I am myself going to make an optimistic speech. First, let me congratulate the Admiralty on the fact that in facing this great expenditure on Singapore, they are not following the example of previous Governments and paying it out of borrowed money. The whole of it is being paid out of revenue, which is a great change. We had a
reminder from the Civil Lord that the fact that they are paying one-and-a-quarter millions of interest on old works which are not situated in the right position for war in the future, so that I am glad they have got away from that policy altogether. When the hon. Member below the Gangway who spent 20 years of his life in Singapore gave us such a pessimistic speech, I could not help recalling other prognostications. When the Suez Canal was under discussion in this House we were assured by Stephenson, the great engineer, who was a Member of this House, that it was quite impossible to construct that canal. Therefore, I feel some of the scepticism which the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) feels in regard to the proposals of the Admiralty, when confident statements of the character made by the hon. Gentleman are made on the Floor of this House. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert.) said that this was against the League of Nations proposal under Article 8. Article 8 is simply to prevent the secret arming of one nation against another, such as secret gas preparation, secret submarine preparation, and so forth. We are not making any secret preparations at Singapore. It has been blazoned out to the world that we proposed to establish a naval base at Singapore, to be completed abut the year 1932.
Therefore, the point about the League of Nations falls to the ground. He also said it was contrary to the Washington Conference. This question was discussed in full at the Washington Conference, and it was known perfectly well that Singapore was left out of consideration, and that we might establish a naval base there. Japan's only desire was that naval bases should not be close to Japan, and that was the sole point considered. The right hon. Member for Paisley asked on what strategic advice the Admiralty have acted. It is obvious that the advice on which the Admiralty act is the War Staff advice. We never had a War Staff before the War. We now have a real War Staff, which he and his Government never gave us.

Mr. ASQUITH: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman referring to the Navy or the Army?

Commander BELLAIRS: The Navy.

Mr. ASQUITH: The War Staff was established in 1912.

Commander BELLAIRS: I know quite well what was then called the Naval War Staff. The right hon. Winston Churchill went to the Admiralty to establish a War Staff, but never did, and the result was the Coronel and other blunders. Here we have a real War Staff. We have two Governments—the Coalition Government and the present Government—affirming this proposal. We had these proposals before the Dominion Governments in 1921 and they have confirmed them, and we have had them before the Defence Committee, and they are unanimous. It is not merely the Naval War Staff that they have been before, but the Air War Staff and the Army War Staff, and all War Staffs have concurred. There are three main causes which, I think, make the Singapore base a necessary base. I remember, shortly after the last Parliament came into existence, in one of these thin Houses which usually discuss the Navy Estimates, I asked the House to take a Pacific outlook instead of a European outlook. I said warfare was changing its ground, and we had to look to the Pacific rather than to Europe for future wars. The reason I gave at that time was that over half the population of the world borders on the Pacific, and looks to the Pacific for its outlet to the sea, that the shipping of the Pacific was overtaking the shipping of the Atlantic, and now at this moment the shipbuilding of the United States on the Pacific Coast is nearly double the shipbuilding of the United States on the Atlantic Coast. That is to say, the Pacific is becoming of increasing importance to the future of the world.
The second point which makes us require a naval base out there is the rise of Japan. Japan was only a small naval power 20 years ago. At the time with which the right hon. Member for Paisley dealt Japan was an ally of ours. Japan is not an ally of ours at this moment. We cannot tell, and no hon. Member on the other side of the House who laughs can give me a forecast of what will be the relations of the Powers 10 years hence. It is impossible. We know perfectly well if we go back to history that in regard
to the Dutch Wars, we have three nations—France, England and Holland. There was every possible combination. One moment it was France and England against Holland and another moment it was France and Holland against England, and in the third case it was some other combination, and we know that in the French Napoleonic Wars Russia changed sides three times, so that no one can foresee what will happen. Even before this War, we saw France, Russia and Germany acting in co-operation to coerce Japan. I expect no one can foresee what will be the permutations and combinations in future, but we do know that Japan has become very powerful. She has a very much larger population than our own, and we know that that population is increasing twice as fast as our own, and will naturally look for fresh territory. We know that its trade has increased in 10 years from £92,000,000 to £438,000,000. The First Lord of the Admiralty, in introducing the Navy Estimates, said we can at present neither sent our Fleet to the Far East nor maintain it there. That is given as the first reason for Singapore. I believe it is quite possible to send a fleet to the Far East, but you cannot ensure, if there were a difference with the Japanese in the future, and war resulted, that the Japanese would fight our Fleet at once on arrival, and how on earth are we to maintain our Fleet in the Far East without a great naval base? We have no docks on that station capable of accommodating Dreadnoughts. It is not a question, as the right hon. Member for Paisley said, that we shall not have Singapore available in 10 years. We shall have a large part available before 10 years, and we have two large floating docks at this moment which can take Dreadnoughts and go through the Suez Canal. Another one of the old docks will be ready before the end of the year, so that we have three floating docks, all of which, if we choose, we can send out to Far Eastern ports.
There is the position of the United States. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who said it is all for the good if the United States possess a developed base at Honolulu, and I have never supposed we were ever going to war with the United States. But, so far from it being a matter of rivalry, Singapore may be of very great assistance to the United
States in defending the Philippines, as we are certain to be on the side of the United States. No one supposes at this day that the United States is going to seek war with Japan, but no one can tell whether the Liberal party in power in Japan will always be in power, and that the Militarist party may not come into power at a later date.
The third reason why I think we require Singapore is this. Singapore is on the direct route to the Far East. It is already a great maritime port. It flanks the route along which all our Australian trade proceeds. Therefore, this is very different from developing such a dockyard as Portsmouth. Singapore is already a great mercantile port, and if ever the time comes when there is no more danger of war, all this naval base will be fully available for commercial development. It will not, be wasted. The right hon. Member for Paisley used an argument very much like that, the other day, of the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), who said this policy of constructing docks at great expense far from the centre of the Empire is opposed to the naval policy of the past 50 years. The difference between now and the past 50 years is that we had then to look to a European enemy. There is none at this moment which can threaten us on the sea whatsoever. The right hon. Member for Paisley talked about the Navy taking the command of the sea in the late War, and asked why could not we go on doing that under present arrangements. Surely the answer is that you had not to send any capital ships to distant seas where there were no docks except for a brief interval when we sent them to the Falklands. If we are going to defend our Australian possessions in the future, we will need capital ships in the Far East, and therefore we must have docks for them. So far from this country being, as the hon. Member for Greenock says, the centre of the Empire, it is on the northern fringe of the Empire. People are apt to forget that 99/100ths of the Empire lies outside a 2,000-mile radius from this country, and Singapore is really much more the centre of the Empire than Portsmouth Dockyard is.
Another point which hon. Members are apt to forget is that the great majority of our naval battles have been fought in distant waters. The Pacific was the scene of many stiffly contested battles in the
old days, such as between Hughes and Suffren, and when I hear all through the speeches to which I have been listening from the Liberal and Labour benches the refrain of economy and peace to-day, my mind goes back to the time when some of us were fighting against naval reduction in the 1906 Parliament. It is precisely the same old story. Randolph Churchill said that the Liberal party is always prevented from governing by what it is pleased to call its principles, and in the process of governing invariably commits suicide. That is true of one section of the party but not of the whole. I believe the National Liberals are better. They run this principle of economy to death. They run the principle of peace to death, but this does not prevent very much greater expenditure in the future. I believe if we had kept up our naval arms in a more decided way, and told Germany very frankly what we intended to do, that the late War might have been avoided, and I think that that would happen and peace be preserved under any Government which carefully looked ahead and framed its policy on a far distant outlook, as I believe the present Government is doing in framing this present policy in regard to Singapore.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I should like, first of all, to acknowledge the frankness of the last speaker, and particularly his remarks concerning the centre of gravity of the British Empire. It is very interesting that it is the opinion of, not only a considerable section of the party to which he belongs, but others, that this country and the islands immediately about it are only a minor part of the British Empire. The statement that was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who introduced this Vote was also very useful indeed. He pointed out that the purpose of the British Fleet was primarily to defend the trade of the British Empire. First and foremost to do that now, and not first of all to be used to defend the shores of this country. I should not myself be surprised if in his lifetime and mine we see Singapore used as a base for the blockade of these islands rather than for the defence of these islands. It is notable that while sometimes we are told that it is policy that determines the outlook, particularly of the Admiralty, and its action, we often discover that armaments disclose what is the real, if carefully disguised, policy which the permanent Government
of this country pursues from decade to decade and from generation to generation regardless of whatever section, Codlin or Short, happens to be in office at the particular moment.
We shall continue to hear of the necessity of basing the centre of the Empire in the East, for the Eastern school are definitely gaining ground. You have your base at Gibraltar, where I see there is to be extra provision for oil. Malta, again, I read is to have extra provision for oil. At Port Said, Port Sudan, and Aden, right down to Singapore, there is constantly more provision for oil. There seems now to be definitely established a tendency to think of the Empire in terms of it going Eastward. That is only natural, having regard to the fact that the labour costs in this country are so much in excess of the labour costs of production in this Eastern quarter. There are such enormous interests to protect. Within a radius of 1,000 to 1,500 miles of Singapore you have what is virtually one of the richest regions in the world. It is because of the tremendous financial interests of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, and particularly below the gangway as well—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—that there is this constant raid upon Singapore.
The whole of the powers of the capitalist world are quarelling at the present time, not merely about petroleum, but about other things. We know that there is a tremendous rivalry for petroleum in the regions of Borneo, Sumatra and around Singapore, but there is also a corresponding necessity for that vital raw material, rubber. There in the neighbourhood of the Malay States is produced practically 95 per cent. of the entire plantation rubber of the world. Of that some 67 per cent. or so is definitely controlled and possessed by British capital. When we turn to the papers published in New York, or organs like the "United States Commerce Review" published in Washington, we find that the Americans are devoting increasing interest to the development of that particular region and considering how best they may possess these plantations and keep them outside the control of the British Empire. We turn again and find that the Japanese are similarly seeking to promote their
interests in that quarter. I quote from a Dutch periodical, produced in English, to the following effect:—
Japan is ever casting covetous glances at the Djambi oilfields, the Celebes ores, the coal, rubber, timber, and all the riches of the Dutch Colonies. The American steel, rubber, automobile, and machinery manufacturers, the bankers, the shipowners, and particularly the United States Government, are perfectly aware of the importance of Dutch East India to America. It will be no advantage to the United States if these Colonies should fall into other hands.
Then is the struggle to be waged in the future between Japan on the one side and America on the other side, with the British Government acting as a lackey and a tool of American high finance? And you are providing the means that you may assist them. On the one side at Honolulu the Americans are providing for themselves, and on the other side, that is Singapore, the kept men of Pier-point Morgan are carefully providing for the necessities of the American Government, knowing incidentally that any facilities that they may provide at Singapore will redound to their mercantile and financial advantage—not merely of the gang that happens to be building the dockyards for the time being. I should like to know who are the contractors who are getting this £10,000,000 slice. Are they the same people who got the last slice out of Dover, out of Gibraltar, or the magnificent piece of profit and plunder that they got out of Rosyth, or Gretna, for this is about the same size as Gretna? Quite apart from that, we must remember there must be a very much higher rate of profit upon the building of a dockyard at Singapore by coloured labour—that is non-trade union labour—than there would be by building a dockyard say at Fish-guard or Grangemouth—a very much greater rate of profit for the building contractors building this kind of thing at Singapore than building a canal across Scotland, or putting down a road between Edinburgh and Glasgow, or building houses for the people in Lanarkshire! You get a bigger return. As for the Admiralty, it will be used as it has been for the last 30 or 40 years deliberately, conscientiously, and consciously to serve the interests of a certain gang of people who are always powerfully entrenched and whose representatives can be seen wandering in and out, backwards and forwards, through the corridors of the
Admiralty whenever you like to look inside; and who are represented in very great numbers on the other side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
Quite apart from all this, and from the advantages that can be derived in the direction I have indicated, there is the assistance, as pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) to the mercantile pursuits of trade, and, let me say incidentally, the shipping interests of Singapore; the assistance that they will be to the great steamship companies, like the British Indian, the New Zealand Shipping Company, and great syndicates like the Peninsula and Oriental, and which alone, as everybody interested in these things knows, has been the ruler virtually, and controls not merely India but the Straits Settlements and our road to the East! That is the definite policy underlying this Singapore business. I protest against it on the grounds I put forward. To spend money in that direction, quite apart from any of these men who recommend it, the strategical experts of the country is not to the point. After all, it is as likely if we get into a war—and we generally topple into one every few years—that is your wonderful ability!—we get an enemy somewhere—that Singapore will be another Port Arthur. Then, I suppose, you will want, when you have got your dockyard there, to provide a fleet of perhaps eight, perhaps 16, or, it may be, 24 capital ships to go East. Also after that you will point out that you need another eight, 16, or 24 to use in the West. You will ask next for extra provision here, and so the merry game will go on, all the time redounding to the vested interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want also vehemently to protest against, especially, the provision of the extra facilities for oiling in the various parts named in this Report, such as Gibraltar, to which you have no claim whatsoever, except that which you are in a position to assert, the claim in which the good Christians opposite believe, namely, the sword. You have no claim to Malta, except the cannon's mouth. You have no claim to Port Sudan, or Port Said, except broken pledges and rape. You have no claim to other places similarly, except that you were strong enough to steal them from someone who was not strong enough to defend them. The story of your
Possessions in the East is a story of one long usurpation. I oppose the amount of this Vote not primarily because of the expenditure but because you are in places where you have no earthly right to be.

Rear-Admiral Sir G. GAUNT: Probably the hon. Member who has just sat down will take the same view of my speech as I do of his. I think I quite understand his view. With America and Japan fighting for the Dutch East Indies, we want to have a base at Singapore—which we have already got; only our idea is to improve it. I do not want to make a speech on this matter; I got up more as an illustration than anything. Two very good men have spoken about Singapore, and one of them spoke about the poor sailor who went to bits because of the climate. But I have lived at Singapore and have been there a good many times since I was first there. I am aggressively healthy, and the place has never affected me, and, please God, if there are those here who are not concerned at defending our home, then I may have to go to Singapore and live there again. I say I am using myself as an illustration. It seems to me we have got some tremendously able politicians, but may I suggest that when they speak on this matter they miss the point?
I think it is many years since we have had a more able and efficient Board of Admiralty than that which we have at the present time, because they are all young men. It is 100 years since men were put through the same tests as these men. They are very keen and able, and they are doing their little best to make bricks without straw and cutting everything down. One hon. Gentleman has criticised the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), who made several points which I would like to be up against, and one of the points he referred to was convoy work. He asked who brought the American troops over from America? I may say that I was in charge of one large convoy, but on that occasion we had somewhere to fuel. But supposing the admiral in charge of those convoys had to go to Australia. He would have no place to coal. The same hon. Member referred to Lord Fisher and Admiral Wilson. He might just as well have gone further back and referred to Nelson, because the Navy is changing so quickly. Our ships are changing very quickly, and although I have only just left the sea myself, I hardly
recognise the ships that are now coming along.
We live by the sea, and I am a man of the Empire. I look to this country when danger threatens and this country looks to our Colonies to come along and help us. If trouble should come along in regard to our Colonies, and if they say to this country, "Mother, give us a hand," it is no good arriving there with our ships if you cannot get fuel for them. I was the Commander of the "Vengeance" which was despatched to China. Our ships were small then, and it was all right, but you could not do the same thing with the "Hood," because there is nowhere you can go to fuel, and when the Admiral of that ship comes to his radius then he is done. Another hon. Member opposite suggested waiting for the Imperial Conference, but I put it we ought not to do that, and we ought to make a start now. Supposing the Imperial Conference said "No," we still have to go ahead, and you are not going to get any "forrader" by waiting until they say "No."
With regard to what has been said about Honolulu, I know that harbour well, and there is no bottom to it. I hope we shall go on with that harbour. With regard to our naval policy, if America and us only see eye to eye there will never be any fighting with anybody, and that is the way to proceed. Another right hon. Gentleman said we should wait for the League of Nations, but that League does not function, and if we are going to wait for that sort of thing we shall not get anywhere. It is all very well to say that 10 years hence we shall not require ships, but until we have discovered something better we have got to go along with ships. You may cut out your ships when you get something better. No doubt eventually we will get in the air, but until you have got there let us keep command of the seas, and keep open our lines of communication and look after the distant parts of the Empire. I hope this Committee will give the Admiralty a chance, and let us have the bases we require.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): The House is more than fortunate in having heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken and of other hon. and gallant Members who have addressed the Committee,
and who know Singapore from their own practical experience. I am glad that they have been able to contribute the result of that experience to this Committee. I should like to say a word or two upon some of the points which have been raised. Some of the criticisms directed against the Government have been upon broad moral grounds. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) began by saying that the establishment of a naval base at Singapore constitutes a flouting of the League of Nations. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has already pointed out that the article referred to by the hon. Member was simply one which discouraged members of the League from making secret preparations. All we are doing is perfectly straightforward and aboveboard.
After all, if the League of Nations has succeeded so far as it has succeeded in the last few years, it is entirely due to the unfailing support which it has received from this Government and the other Governments of the British Empire. This Government has not only given the League support in Council, but it has endorsed the whore spirit of the League both in its policy towards other nations, and in the example we have set with regard to disarmament. This country has disarmed more completely than any other great Power concerned in the late struggle. We not only took a leading part in arriving at the Washington Agreement, but to make sure that it should be carried out we ran great risks by carrying out at once the measures of disarmament which that Treaty prescribed.
There is one other word which I should like to say about the League of Nations. The League has laid down as one of its chief objects to prevent war by co-operation against wanton aggression. You cannot co-operate against wanton aggression unless you have some force co-operating with you. It never was the idea of the League of Nations that it should be a League of the Helpless, and surely the strength of the British Empire is an essential factor in the success of the League of Nations. Our policy has also been criticised on the ground that it is said to be a cynical infringement of the provisions of the Washington Treaty. I think the
merit and success of that Treaty is due to the fact that we aimed at a perfectly clear and precise objective. We put an end to the competitive building of new capital ships by putting a definite limit to the number and size of the ships.
We were also confronted by the fact that some of the Powers concerned—more particularly Japan, which was the weakest of the three, and which by the Treaty had its navy fixed at a strength of only three-fifths of that of the United States and of this country—thought that the development of more powerful fleet bases in the neighbourhood of their own countries would constitute a menace. Consequently, to use a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), we made a self-denying ordinance, and we mutually agreed not to establish or to further develop naval bases within that region where the construction of those naval bases would obviously indicate the possibility of aggression against each other. That is why the United States cannot develop any base west of Pearl Harbour, and that is why we are precluded ourselves from developing any further our old-fashioned small base at Hong Kong.
That Agreement, however, did not preclude any of the three Powers from developing those bases which were required for the mobility of their fleets on the outer border of the region so defined. Japan is not precluded from building bases on its own mainland, and America and Australia explicitly are free to strengthen their main land bases. In the discussion Which took place it was clearly understood that Singapore stood outside the region indicated and was clearly outside the Treaty. In face of these facts there can be no suggestion of menace to Japan or any idea on our part that we are contemplating the danger of strained relations with Japan or any other great Power. On the contrary, if we were contemplating such a menace we should certainly be proceeding in a much more strenuous and urgent fashion. After all, as more than one hon. Member has said, you cannot rely upon an indefinite future of peace, and just because we have so reduced our naval force, it is essential that that force should be free and mobile.
I have been asked against whom is this base being directed? My answer is
that it is not against Japan or any other great Power any more than Portsmouth or Malta or Gibraltar can be considered as a menace against France or Italy or Germany. They are required by our Navy, which must be mobile and free to act right across the world. It is just because the Navy has been so reduced that it is vitally essential that it should be mobile, and possess a chain of fuel stations and repairing bases without which it would be helpless at those long distances. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton asked, "How can we keep up communications with a base 7,000 miles away?" Here the right hon. Gentleman is in conflict with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley who believes in the command of all the seas. But how could a navy more than 7,000 miles away carry on war, if it should arise, without any bases nearer than 8,000, 9,000, or 10,000 miles across the sea? It is only if you have bases within the operating range of your battleship fleet that you can make your navy free to work across the seas of the world. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molten suggested that for anyone to believe that with a one-Power standard we could ever send a fleet to Singapore was only worthy of someone confined in Colney Hatch. I wonder where you would confine someone who imagined that in a war with a great oceanic Power across the sea the British Navy is to remain in the North Sea while one portion after another of the British Empire is being destroyed?
7.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the new strategy which the Admiralty are now following. It is not a new strategy. On the contrary, it is the immemorial strategy on which this Empire has been built, and by which it has been defended. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) pointed out, I think, that the decisive sea battles of our history have been fought at great distances from our shores. Trafalgar itself, though fought in European waters, was only accidentally fought there in the course of a chase right across the Atlantic to the West Indies and back again. The future destinies of the British Empire may well be settled in the remotest seas. It is not a new strategy. It was laid before the Dominions by the Admiralty in the Selborne Memorandum just over 20 years
ago, in which it was pointed out that "the seas are all one, and our policy must be to seek out the ships of the enemy, wherever to be found, and destroy them. At whatever spot and in whatever sea those ships are found and destroyed, there the whole Empire will be simultaneously defended, and its territory, trade, and interests." That is the true doctrine. If I understand him aright, the right hon. Member for Paisley himself fully subscribes to that doctrine. He pointed out that the really vital thing which decided the fate of the late War in the first month or two was the fact that in all the seas of the world we had assured command almost from the outset. We swept the enemy from all these outlying seas, and that cut the main artery of Germany from which, slowly but surely, she bled to death. It took four years for Germany to bleed to death, but how many weeks would it take us to be undone if the command of the outer seas were lost?
I would remind the right hon. Member for Paisley that we secured the command of the outer seas almost at once because in those days we had far more than a one-power standard—fully a two-power standard in cruisers and lighter craft—and we had an actual superiority on the spot in practically all the waters of the world. Even so, one small German squadron beginning in the China seas caused us infinite anxiety, and at one moment, as Mr. Churchill's book brings out very dramatically, was in serious danger of affecting our whole strategic position. We had to weaken for a time the capital ships of the Grand Fleet in order to fight a battle in the Southern Atlantic 7,000 or 8,000 miles from this country. Imagine a position in which von Spee's squadron had been appreciably stronger. Imagine it had been what the battle fleets of other great nations in these distant waters are, a mighty fleet comparable and even equal to our own. How could you then cope with such a situation except by being able to take out your battle fleets? The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the present or late wartime cruiser proportion could cover all our trade to Australia and those countries. One hon. Member said we had the command of all the Australian seas. We have not. We are not in a position to-day, nor shall we be for many years to come, to put a battle fleet into the Pacific or
even as far as Singapore. In all these waters, with their immense consequences to us from the strategical point of view and from the point of view also of the Empire of which we are the trustees and main defenders, we are helpless and reliant on the good will of a friendly and lately allied Power. But no self-respecting Power can afford indefinitely to be dependent on another Power for its security and even existence, and it is because we wish the Navy to be free to fulfil its historic function in order to operate freely anywhere in the world, and to operate with an additional freedom because we have so cut down the margin of naval strength—these are the general grounds on which the Board of Admiralty have come to the conclusion that it is essential to develop, not hastily nor in any manner which would appear to aim at anyone, but steadily and surely to develop a base with which we can maintain the Navy in those waters.
The right hon. Gentleman asked, and I think quite rightly, on what responsibility and on what authority we proceeded—what was the genesis of the scheme. I may remind him that the defence of Singapore goes back to recommendations made as early as 1882. In 1885 provision was made to strengthen these defences still further, and before the War it was decided that the scale of defence should be adequate to resist attack by armoured cruisers involving the use of 9.2 guns. That was the largest vessel at that time to be considered. It is true that that did not come under naval Estimates but was dealt with in Army Votes, but it certainly came before the Committee of Imperial Defence. The strategic importance of Singapore was very fully recognised by the Imperial Defence Conference of 1911, and it was considered that the future composite Pacific Fleet of the Empire, as it was then spoken of, should look to Singapore as its main rallying point, and regular conferences took place between the Commanders-in-Chief of the China, Australian, and Indian stations at intervals at what was recognised as the strategical centre of the Empire east of the Suez Canal. It is perfectly true that during the years preceding the War we had an immense concentration in home waters, but that was only because our enemy happened to be in those same waters, and we concentrated immediately in front of him. If he had had another
exit on the ocean, or had developed his Fleets in distant waters as France and Russia did in earlier times, our Fleets would have been correspondingly dispersed. I would remind the right hon. Member for South Molton that during that period relating to France and Russia of which he spoke we maintained a very powerful Fleet on the China station, and it has always been our position that our Fleet shall be free to go wherever the Fleet of any possible or potential enemy can go.
Therefore, it is perfectly natural that after the War, when the German menace was disposed of, when you had to deal with the problem of great oceanic powers across distant seas, the task of reviewing the disposition of the Navy on the lines of its historic strategy should occupy the attention of the naval staff. I should like, in passing, to endorse all that has been said about the immense increase in the efficiency the staff has witnessed in recent years, and the careful and painstaking work they have done which, I may say, has paid every consideration to the pressing needs of economy. The Chief of the Staff, Lord Beatty, and, his fellow members, the Sea Lords, have throughout dealt with these strategic problems, not only as strategists, but also as statesmen. They have never made a demand that they have not regarded as absolutely imperative, and they have postponed many demands which they have undoubtedly regarded as urgent. From the moment that demobilisation was completed, this problem of the necessity of improving our oil stations on the route to Singapore and developing the base at Singapore was put forward by the naval staff to the Committee of Imperial Defence. The views of the naval staff were endorsed by the Committee, and by the Cabinet in the time of the late Government. I am speaking of two and three years ago. These proposals were before the Imperial Conference of 1921, and met with the approval of the Imperial Conference. It is no use telling us to wait for another Imperial Conference. The question of principle has been already agreed to by ourselves and the Dominions concerned.
After all, what we are engaged on now are the veriest preliminaries. There is ample time to discuss, and we mean to discuss, the fuller development of the dockyard and of the contribution the parts of
the Empire concerned may make. There is every time for that at the next Conference. Nothing is being lost in that respect. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that this matter has been investigated and re-investigated for more than three years. It was re-investigated by the Board, by the Committee of Imperial Defence, by the Cabinet since the new Government came into power, and the conclusion they came to, and I have no doubt it is the right one, was identical with the decision to which their predecessors came. I have no doubt the Conference this autumn will endorse the conclusions to which the Conference of 1921 came. Hon. Members have asked for a certain amount of detail about this base, and first of all I should like to meet the criticism, rather surprising criticism as coming from such a quarter, that we are building too slowly. I think it has already been mentioned that Rosyth, for which the right hon. Member for South Molton was responsible as Civil Lord, was held up, very unnecessarily as the event proved, and with disastrous consequences from the point of view of economy and possibly strategy. The right hon. Member suggested, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley followed him in suggesting, that unless we finish this dockyard at once it will be entirely out of date.

Mr. ASQUITH: I did not say that. I said that if the urgency was what it is represented to be it seemed to me a very odd way of dealing with it to construct a base that could not be completed for 10 years.

Mr. AMERY: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. The right hon. Member for South Molton considered that the docks would be obsolete because ships would have changed entirely in 10 years. I think he forgets that by the Washington Treaty the bulk and size of ships is definitely limited not only for 10 years but for a considerable period beyond that. The life of our capital ships is 20 years as laid down by the Treaty.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Member answer this question? How will you protect the communications of Singapore with the home country in the face of the extraordinarily developed power of the submarine?

Mr. AMERY: That is another point, to which I will come in a moment. The point the right hon. Gentleman did make was that when we had completed it Singapore would be obsolete. I suggest that under the conditions of the Washington Treaty, and in any case in view of the substantial size of the docks we are going to build and that the workshops in any case are not affected, Singapore will be anything but obsolete 10, 20, or 50 years hence. The right hon. Member for Paisley had a different point. He suggested that the battleship would be obsolete, and that some entirely different form of warfare would take its place. All I can say is that the basis of all the discussions at Washington, on which all the great naval staffs were unanimous, and on which the most careful investigation by Cabinet Committees in this country were unanimous, is that the battleship is now, and will remain for as long a future as one can foresee, the main strength and pivot of naval battle. You may have immense developments in the air, immense developments in lighter craft, but, when it comes to the main battle, in the war of the future as in the late War, it will be the faster and more powerfully armed ships, with bigger guns, which will destroy. There is a very striking passage in the book to which I have referred, in which it is stated that Von Spee, the moment he saw the tripod masts of our battle cruisers, knew that he was destroyed and could never escape, because of the greater strength and greater speed of those ships. That will remain true in the future as it is true to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton raised a very different question. He asked how will this distant base be defended, how will communications be defended against the submarine menace?

Mr. LAMBERT: I asked, how will you get your ships there?

Mr. AMERY: The submarine has never interfered in the least with the free movement of battleships in battle fleets. The danger they have had to face has been when they were at anchor. It is then that the most elaborate precautions have to be taken. A fleet in movement, with its proper proportion of destroyers and light cruisers, its own submarines and aeroplanes, can, I think, afford to take very lightly the possibilities of an attack
by stray submarines operating many thousands of miles from their nearest base. With our chain of bases like Malta, Aden, and so on, and our oil-fuel stations, we have not the slightest doubt that the British Navy can hold its own effectively in those distant waters. But—and this is the whole point of what we are doing—if we had not those oil stations, if we had not those bases where the Fleet could be repaired, we should be helpless. Hon. Members will, I think, remember very well those terrible hours when we heard of some of our winged battleships limping back across the North Sea after Jutland. The advantage that the Germans had then was that they had not so far to go to save their ships. They might not have been saved if they had had to cross the North Sea. How can you get ships back from the other end of the world unless you have effective repairing bases for the Navy near the possible scene of action?
What we propose to construct there is an effective repair and docking base in every sense of the word. We propose to have a graving dock capable of holding the biggest modern capital ships. We shall probably have a floating dock there as well. Certainly, we shall have all the workshops, the stores of reserve ammunition, and all the other equipment of a good sized base upon which the Fleet could work if the emergency should, possibly, arise. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Darbishire) spoke very pessimistically about Singapore altogether, but his appearance and vigour belied his own pessimism. He suggested that we should have terrible difficulties in regard to dredging and so on in Singapore harbour. I can assure the House that we have, naturally, considered those problems, and we are not proposing either to interfere with the beauty or with the depth of the existing harbour of Singapore; but, at the point where we do propose to construct a naval base, we hope to be able at any rate to accommodate a very considerable number of ships without any dredging, and to construct the necessary docks and basins without meeting those difficulties of bottomless mud to which the hon. Member referred. After all, the Admiralty experts are capable of profiting by the experience of civil engineers who have worked in other parts of the world, and, naturally, they
inquired into all the conditions of Singapore before they took action.
Then the question was raised of the military garrison that would be required. Undoubtedly, Singapore will require guns to defend it against a raid, and it will require some form of military garrison. It has a not inconsiderable military garrison at the moment. It will also require, in its proper proportion, its share of aeroplanes. But in all these respects Singapore, like Malta and like Gibraltar, as far as most probable forms of attack are concerned, is, in the main, dependent upon the Navy itself for its security against a great attack. It is only against minor attacks or preliminary raids that you want to make it secure. It is virtually an island position, and it would be anything but easy to land a large army in a jungle such as the hon. Member spoke of so pessimistically. The present complement may have to be increased, but it will not require an enormous land force or air force.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: May I say that there is no jungle round the shores of Singapore? It is a very easy problem.

Mr. AMERY: I did not mean immediately round Singapore, but, at any rate, that problem has been very carefully investigated in connection with the proposed base, and we do not contemplate the possibility of vast armies being able to land there before the British Navy can come to its support. I think I have made it clear that the action we have taken is entirely consistent with our general policy of keeping armaments down to the utmost limit compatible with our safety, that it is in no sense contrary to the spirit either of the League of Nations or of the Washington Treaty, that it simply aims at securing for the British Navy as it now is—very much reduced, on a one-Power standard, where we used to consider a two-Power standard barely sufficient—to secure for that Navy free mobility, so that it may carry out in every sea of the world its historic mission, which is to keep the seas free for the trade of this country and free for that communication between this country and other portions of the Empire, on which, after all, in peace and in war, our security and existence depends.

Mr. PRINGLE: This is a very important Vote. It commits the country to
a large expenditure of money, and the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is the first considered statement that has come from any Minister on this question. I think, therefore, that it is only right that the Committee, after hearing this new statement of policy on the part of the Admiralty, should consider all the issues which are therein involved. I think it is the general feeling of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman has made a very admirable statement, and I am sure that hon. Members in all quarters are indebted to him for what he has said. We were interested alike in his historical account of the strategy of the British Navy and in his equally confident speculations regarding the future. One thing which he made clear is that, since the War, the Admiralty and the War Staff of the Admiralty have decided upon a complete new system of strategy. In the days before the War, naval strategy, as is now well known, was based upon concentration. The adoption of this proposal has made it clear that the Admiralty now contemplates a dispersion of the naval forces of this country, somewhat in the same way and on the same scale as in the days before 1902.
That is a very serious decision to take, and it is all the more serious in view of the comparative weakness of the forces which are now at the disposal of the Admiralty. Dispersion may be a sound thing if you have a large superiority. Dispersion, for example, was the policy in the days when we built on the two-Power standard, and when France and Russia were considered to be our possible enemies. Owing to the strategetic dispositions of those Powers, the Admiralty of those days, in the '80's and the '90's, had considerable forces in practically every sea in the world. There was a considerable part of our Fleet, as the right hon. Gentleman said, on the China Station in those days; but we had a margin over the two-Power standard in those days, and what might have been a safe policy when we had a substantial margin may now be a doubtful policy if there is no such margin, as the right hon. Gentleman has now admitted to be the case.
One would like to know more clearly what the right hon. Gentleman means by the mobility of the British Fleet. It is
one of those fine-sounding phrases the exact meaning of which is not often precisely defined by the gentlemen who use them, nor is it clear to the minds of those who hear them. Apparently, there can be no mobility of the British Fleet until this base is completed. That is obvious, because at the present moment there is no adequate base at Singapore, and, as there will be no adequate base at Singapore during the whole period of 10 years until this base is completed, the British Fleet is robbed of all mobility. First of all, therefore, we are in this position, that the British Fleet is based on what is hardly a one-Power standard, and, in the second place, it has no mobility in the sense which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It seems to me that, if there is a sound case for a base at Singapore, and if the base at Singapore is essential for the mobility of the Fleet—a mobility which the right hon. Gentleman has said is necessary for the defence of the Empire—then there can be no excuse for the Admiralty delaying it so long.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: We all agree.

Mr. PRINGLE: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman, therefore, cannot be satisfied with the present position. He cannot be satisfied to wait for 10 years until the Fleet is mobile. It seems to me that the policy of the Admiralty is to "wait and see" for a period of 10 years, during which all sorts of changes may take place in regard to the conditions of sea warfare. The right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with the past, forgot that in those cases we had a clear objective in relation to which we had to make our plans. We were making our plans, in the 80's and 90's of last century, on the basis of a possible combination between France and Russia. After the entente with France, our plans were based upon the possible enmity of Germany. On what basis is the new strategy framed? I think that is a fair question to ask. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about a war with a great oceanic Power across the sea. That can only be construed as a veiled allusion to Japan, and it can only be construed, therefore, as casting doubt upon the value of the Washington Agreement. If the Washington Agreement were regarded as providing that security for the Pacific
Ocean which it is alleged to provide, and if it were regarded as laying down on a definite basis the relative standard of naval strength for ourselves, America and Japan, then it would, surely, be unnecessary to undertake these new preparations. In addition to that, I think the selection of Singapore in that connection, however well the right hon. Gentleman may defend it, casts some doubt on the value of what he himself has described as a great act of faith. He took credit to himself in the Memorandum which he issued on the Navy Estimates, as well as in the speech he delivered in introducing them for the reduction of armaments which had been made by the Admiralty and he described that as a great act of faith. But when it comes to this naval base at Singapore there is not the same evidence of faith. It is true that by the strict terms of the Agreement we are debarred from having such a base at Hong Kong, but in this attitude of faith we say, "Being debarred from Hong Kong, we will do the next best thing and be as near as we possibly can on the heels of the Japanese fleet by having this base at Singapore."
Here you have a double contradiction. First of all, if this base be necessary there can be no excuse for the long delay in its construction, because there is the admission that during all the period in which it is under construction the British Fleet is deprived of mobility. Then there is the second contradiction, that if we are to pin our faith to the Washington Agreement, if the standards laid down in the Washington Agreement are to determine the naval strength of the three great Powers, as the Government allege it will, it is unnecessary to undertake this at all and to talk about the mobility of our Fleet for the purpose of these distant seas. It is of the utmost importance that the Government and the Admiralty should make up their minds which line they are going to take. Are they going to adhere to the Washington Agreement? Are they going to give evidence of their belief, not by reducing armaments, but evidence of their belief indeed by not making this unnecessary provision at Singapore? If they take the line that the policy of armament reduction is sound and that the Agreement is to stand, the Committee is not justified in agreeing to this expense. If, on the other hand,
the Agreement is to be regarded as of little account, as apparently the League of Nations is in nearly every quarter of the House, and if, that Agreement being of little account, it is essential that at the earliest possible moment we should secure the mobility of the British Fleet, there is no excuse for the long delay which the Admiralty is now advising. They are taking up a middle position which cannot be defended in any quarter of the House. It cannot be defended by the people who believe in the next war, because if they believe in the next war it is necessary to have this done immediately. If, on the other hand,

they believe in the security that is afforded by international agreements they should declare by their vote that there is no excuse for entering upon this heavy commitment, admittedly now amounting to £11,000,000 and which will in all probability in the future amount to a great deal more, and I advise the Committee to vote against this increased expenditure.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,832,750, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 253.

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[7.35 p.m.


Adams, D.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Grady, Captain James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hancock, John George
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Harris, Percy A.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hayday, Arthur
Royce, William Stapleton


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Sexton, James


Bowdler, W. A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hill, A.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hillary, A. E.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buchanan, G.
Hogge, James Myles
Simpson, J. Hope


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Irving, Dan
Snowden, Philip


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Cape, Thomas
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Thornton, M.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kenyon, Barnet
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Leach, W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Linfield, F. C.
Weir, L. M.


Edmonds, G
Lowth, T.
white, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Falconer, J.
M'Entee, V. L.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Foot, Isaac
McLaren, Andrew
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Millar, J. D.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Muir, John W.



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Newbold, J. T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Phillips and Sir A. Marshall.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Blundell, F. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Chapman, Sir S.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Churchman, Sir Arthur


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brass, Captain W.
Clarry, Reginald George


Apsley, Lord
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Clayton, G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Briggs, Harold
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Cope, Major William


Banks, Mitchell
Bruford, R.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell


Barnston, Major Harry
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Becker, Harry
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Bell, Lieut. Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Butcher, Sir John George
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Berry, Sir George
Cautley, Henry Strother
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Jephcott, A. R.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Dudgeon, Major C. B.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, putney)


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sandon, Lord


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Lorimer, H. D.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Lougher, L.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Lumley, L. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Furness, G. J.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Garland, C. S.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Singleton, J. E.


Gates, Percy
Manville, Edward
Skelton, A. N.


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Mercer, Colonel H.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sparkes, H. W.


Greene, Lt.-Col- Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stanley, Lord


Gretton, Colonel John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Murchison, C. K.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nall, Major Joseph
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Halstead, Major D.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harbord, Arthur
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Harvey, Major S. E
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hawke, John Anthony
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Tubbs, S. W.


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wallace, Captain E.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Paget, T. G.
Waring, Major Walter


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Wells, S. R.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Penny, Frederick George
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Perring, William George
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Peto, Basil E.
Whitla, Sir William


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Pielou, D. P.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Winterton, Earl


Hopkins, John W. W.
Privett, F. J.
Wise Frederick


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslay)
Raine, W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Houfton, John Plowright
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hughes, Collingwood
Remer, J. R.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hurd, Percy A.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)



Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)
Gibbs.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 274; Noes, 51.

Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Remer, J. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hillary, A. E.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hood, Sir Joseph
Robertson-Despencer, Major (lsl'gt'n W)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Houfton, John Plowright
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cope, Major William
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sandon, Lord


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Shipwright, Captain D.


Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Darblshire, C. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Simpson, J. Hope


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Sir A.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Singleton, J. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Linfield, F. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Edmonds, G.
Lorimer, H. D.
Sparkes, H. W.


Ednam, Viscount
Lougher, L.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Ellis, R. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Manville, Edward
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Falconer, J.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Foot, Isaac
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Merger, Colonel H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Furness, G. J.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Tubbs, S. W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wallace, Captain E.


Gates, Percy
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Waring, Major Walter


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Murchison, C. K.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wells, S. R.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Nall, Major Joseph
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Whitla, Sir William


Grigg, Sir Edward
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Guthrie, Thomas Mauie
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Winterton, Earl


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Paget, T. G.
Wise, Frederick


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Halstead, Major D.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Perring, William George
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Peto, Basil E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hancock, John George
Phillipps, Vivian
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Harbord, Arthur
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Harris, Percy A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



Harvey, Major S. E.
Price, E. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hawke, John Anthony
Pringle, W. M. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Privett, F. J.
Gibbs.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, W





NOES.


Adams, D.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cairns, John
Duncan, C.


Buchanan, G.
Cape, Thomas
Gosling, Harry

NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES (NAVAL AND MARINE), OFFICERS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £2,844,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of non-effective Services (naval and marine), officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it. On his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and, accordingly, he called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the "Ayes" had it.

NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES (NAVAL AND MARINE), MEN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,260,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of non-effective Services (naval and marine), men, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

8.0 P.M.

The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Chairman stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it. On his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and, accordingly, he called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the "Ayes" had it.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £792,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of Civil Superannuation, compensation allowances, and gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I wish to raise one or two points on this Vote regard to pensions granted to dockyard men. These pensions are paid subject to certain conditions. The pensioner must reside in the British Isles, he must have attained to 60 years of age, or retire on account of mental or physical infirmity. These pensions do not amount to more than £150 a year in the case of an unmarried man, and £200 a year in the case of a married man. All those people who are in receipt of these superannuation allowances consider that this in many cases may be unfair to them. The fact that they must reside in the British Isles prevents the older people migrating as they might wish to do with their dependants. If they leave this country they become immediately ineligible for the amount, and, although the sum is not a large one, it is frequently sufficient to keep a family together. Then they consider that at the age of 60 they ought to be given that sum, whatever it is, without any further trouble, and they also think the limitation of their means to £150 if unmarried, and £200 if married, is a little unfair. [HON. MEMBERS" Agreed!"] I hope the Government will agree to it also, and that those three causes of trouble will be removed from a very deserving number of people.
There is another point I wish to raise, and that is the question of workmen's compensation. There are several Compensation Acts, the last being in 1913. Compensation is based, of course, on the pre-War wage, and it is absolutely and entirely insufficient. The compensation was fair according to the standards which prevailed before the War, but now if you base it on the pre-War wage the compensation is quite insufficient., and the Government have shown no great alacrity to bring in a new Act. There was, as you are aware, a special Act for the dockyards. It was supposed to be not less
good than the Workmen's Compensation Act itself, but even as it is, if it be a shade better than the old Act, it is not enough for the present day, and I wish to urge the Government as much as I can to take this matter in hand as soon as possible. If a man lost the fingers of his hand he was given 4s. 6d. a week. If he be a skilled man, he can no longer follow his trade, and 4s. 6d. a week does not help him even towards his rates, and certainly not towards his rent.
I know a case in which a man had his shoulder blade broken. When the shoulder blade healed, they told him that he was practically as good a man as before, and he is in receipt of 5s. 6d. a week. He cannot raise his hand above his arm, and, as he is an engine fitter, he naturally cannot continue at his old trade. 5s. 6d. a week given to a man in that condition is absolutely ludicrous, and it ought promptly to be remedied. There is another point I wish to make. There were men who retired from the yards in 1919. Some were retired at 75 per cent. of their pay and others were retired at 40 per cent. The established men retired at 75 per cent., while most of the hired men retired on 40 per cent. But not all the hired men, for by a mistake which does not usually occur at the Admiralty—by a small mistake a number of hired men who should have received 40 per cent. on leaving at November, 1919, were given 75 per cent. If we lived in a perfect world, A, B and C would not complain if D and E received more money than themselves, but in this world as it is, if one man out of 20 gets a larger increase of pay and compensation than the 19 then the other 19 think they have been rather badly treated. That is one of the things in human nature that you cannot fight against. Although the matter has been before the Admiralty for months, I do not say years, the men who are aggrieved are still active, and they are still coming up 'here in deputations. Their object is to get the Admiralty, if possible, to accept their views, and at any rate to investigate the matter a little more closely.
The differentiation between the hired men and the establishment men is particularly unfortunate in this matter, because all these men worked faithfully during the War, and many of them wished to go out and fight, but they were not
allowed to do so. They did not get leave to go to the War. It is true, of course, that while they were there they received large—in fact, immensely large wages, but that is no reason why, when they retire at the age of 60 or 65, they should not receive compensation—it is rather a question of bonus than compensation—that they should not be bonused up to the full amount to which they are entitled. The establishment men do not see why they should get less than these men. The question is a complicated one, because in the early stages of the War some of the 40 per cent. men benefited more than the men getting 75 per cent., but that is very exceptional. I hope the Admiralty will pay attention to this matter.

Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. May I direct your attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present?

Mr. SPEAKER: A count cannot be taken between 8.15 and 9.15.

Mr. MACLEAN: This Bill seeks to confer powers on the Caledonian Railway Company for the acquisition of land and the maintenance of a hotel and golf course at Gleneagles in the county of Perth. A circular issued to Members of this House points out that objection is being taken to this Bill on the ground of third-class "sleepers," the reconstruction of the Buchanan Street Station in Glasgow and the facilities of passenger traffic from Glasgow. The circular states that these are not objections which are relevant to the Bill. I submit that they
are very relevant. This Bill seeks to give to the Caledonian Railway powers which will involve a large expenditure of money. I take it from the Bill that they are not asking power to raise money to take over the golf course and finish the construction of the hotel. Consequently I take it that they intend to pay for those things out of the funds of the railway company. I submit that the construction of the Buchanan Street Station is of considerably more importance to a large industrial population and a commercial centre such as Glasgow than the construction of a golf course in the heart of Scotland, and the erection of a palatial hotel intended only to house luxurious tourists who go there to indulge in the game of golf.
The reconstruction of the Buchanan Street Station was contemplated by the Caledonian Railway Company for many years past. The only reconstruction which has taken place in the passengers' section has been to repaint it periodically and hang pots of flowers around it as though that were going to beautify a wooden erection that was put up possibly when Noah descended from the Ark. The provision of third class "sleepers" is another point, which ought to be considered by any railway company. When one considers the difficulties and discomforts of a journey at night, to those who cannot afford to pay first-class fare and £1 extra for the use of a "sleeper," and when many people have to travel at night and have no money to pay for sleeping accommodation, it is necessary to consider the provision of facilities for those people so that they may do their travelling with some comfort. Consequently I consider that the provision of third-class "sleepers" is a very important ground of objection to this Bill, because when railway companies come to this House to get further powers conferred upon them, there arises one of the few occasions on which Members can put forward the grievances of large sections of the community in reference to the railway companies and their methods of conveying passenger and goods traffic. The provision of third-class "sleepers" would, apart from the question of the general community, confer considerable benefit on large numbers of Members of this House who have to travel to Scotland on Friday nights and come back on Sunday nights.

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the erection of the railway station, I do not raise any objection to the hon. Member's remarks. That is a matter for this particular company. But in reference to the question which is now raised by the hon. Member, I must draw attention to a ruling given by my predecessor on the 24th April, 1913, on the Second Reading of a similar Bill. That ruling states:
The hon. Member is not entitled to take advantage of the fact that there is an omnibus Bill of a particular railway company to raise a grievance which applies not to that particular railway company alone, but to other railway companies. It stands exactly in the same position as third-class 'sleepers'; it cannot be raised on any one separate railway company's Bill. It is a general matter which must be dealt with by a general Bill and it is open to the hon. Member to bring in a Bill to abolish this particular system."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 24th April, 1913; Vol. 52, col. 655.]

Mr. MACLEAN: Since that ruling was given by your predecessor, things have happened in this country. A Railway Bill has been passed which amalgamates the railways of this country, and the Caledonian Railway Company itself in the Bill refers to that amalgamation and includes itself as one part of this amalgamation. Consequently, while my remarks as to sleepers may seem applicable only to the Bill before the House at the moment, still the fact that the railway companies are now all in an amalgamation makes the matter of general application to all railway companies. The Caledonian Railway Company refers to itself in this Bill as a part of the London, Midland and Northern Railway Amalgamation, but I submit to your ruling if you press it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that there is another company in Scotland on the East Coast. That makes the ruling apply.

Mr. MACLEAN: I accept your ruling, though I am certain that a large number of people consider that this is a very urgent matter. But with regard to the reconstruction of Buchanan Street Station and the question of passenger facilities I submit that the money which will have to be spent if this Bill passes could be spent more usefully, so far as the people of Scotland are concerned, than on the acquisition of this golf course. The part of Scotland in which it is situated contains no industry. It is purely rural, and
until the time that this golf course was projected, Gleneagles was an isolated station with only a small wooden waiting room which was the joke of all people who travelled to the North of Scotland via that line. And since the Gleneagles Company mentioned in this Bill laid down the golf course and commenced the construction of an hotel, a palatial junction has been placed there quite out of keeping with the amount of traffic that goes up to Gleneagles Station except the traffic which goes merely for the golfing.
I submit that until such time as this country has done a great many more things necessary for the well-being of the entire community, it cannot allow a railway company to expend money upon what, after all, is a pure luxury. There are plenty of golf courses in and around Glasgow, and on the West Coast and the East Coast. There is no occasion for another golf course in the heart of Scotland, at the present moment at any rate. The Railways Act of 1921 made a point of giving an assurance or guarantee on the part of the Government to the railway companies that their profits would not fall below the picked year of 1913. If the profits fell below that level and the railway companies could show that they had managed their railways with efficiency, the State had to guarantee the difference between the amount earned and the amount earned in 1913. There is no statement in this Bill that that money is to be raised by other means. Consequently we must assume that the money which the Caledonian Railway Company intends to expend is money that it has built up in its reserve funds, and that it is to form part of the new capital.
If the Gleneagles golf course does not show a profit, as I am certain will happen, since golf is purely a seasonal sport, are we to understand that the railway company can place upon the general expenditure of the railway company the loss made upon the course and hotel. If that is the case, it will bring down any profits which may be made by the company in other parts of the country. It surely is something beyond the intention of this House that any railway can enter on a project of this nature, and that persons who travel and merchants who send their goods by that railway should be compelled to pay their quota to the subsidising of a place
that is only to be used by a few individuals for sport. That is one of the most striking arguments that we can put forward against the Bill. If the railway companies intend to carry out this scheme they ought to do it as something subsidiary to the railway, as seems to have been contemplated when the Gleneagles Company was first started, and when the Caledonian Railway Company acquired powers, in 1913, to lend money to the Gleneagles Company for the purpose of assisting it in carrying out the project then contemplated. If this were a subsidiary company, with its own capital and its own profit and loss account, standing upon its own legs and bearing either the burden of losses or the benefits of profit, one could not object to a scheme put forward by the railway company. But when they bring it in as part of the general working of the railway company, surely every man and woman who travels or sends goods by that company has a right to protest against the House passing such a Bill.
Then there is the question of the revision of fares. The English and Welsh sections of the amalgamation reduced their fares by the last 25 per cent. that had been put on. That is to say, they reduced the fares by one-seventh. In Scotland no such reduction has taken place. If you pick up the time tables and read what are called the revised fares, you will find that the Scottish people are paying that one-seventh still. There, again, we have a cogent argument against allowing a Bill of this character to pass. Week-end tickets have again been brought into vogue in a very limited manner for English and Welsh travellers, but one who has to go at the week-ends to Scotland does not get the benefit. If you travel on the Friday and leave London at 10 a.m., so as to arrive in Glasgow about 7 p.m., you must purchase an ordinary ticket. In pre-War times one could leave on the Friday morning and travel back on the Tuesday morning with a week-end ticket. To-day the week-end ticket is issued only after 5 o'clock, which means travelling by night both going and coming. We are told that this is an age when we must economise, and that we have too little money to spend upon luxuries. The passing of this Bill will give to the Caledonian Railway Company an opportunity for taking part in a display of extravagance and waste which
this House time and time again has condemned, even in the Division Lobby. I hope that the House will refuse to give the powers which are sought by this company until the things that we desire most in this country have accomplished.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.
I recognise frankly that there are at least two difficulties which always attach to the discussion of a Bill of this kind. In the first place we are a little handicapped in debate by having to avoid as far as possible what is general argument applied to the railways as a whole, and by the effort to confine ourselves to this particular Measure. In the second place, I recognise it is difficult for any hon. Member to appear in opposition to a proposal which looks like one of railway development or progress in this country—particularly so for me in regard to a Scottish proposal of that kind. There are, however, considerations underlying this Bill on which the House is entitled to information, and I should like to summarise the difficulties as I see them in the shortest possible form. Quite clearly, this is an effort on the part of the Caledonian Railway Company to take over the undertaking begun by the Gleneagles Company. I am not going into the difficulties which have confronted that company, but there must have been difficulties of some kind, with the result that the railway company now appears on the scene and asks for considerable powers. These powers include the acquisition of land, and so forth, in the vicinity of this golf course, which, in the aggregate, involves the railway company in very considerable capital expenditure, and the question which we have to ask is how this capital expenditure is going to work out as affecting the people who use and who depend upon the railway services of this country?
The Mover of the Motion for the rejection of the Bill drew attention to Section 58 of the Railways Act, 1921. That Section amounts to a direction to the Rates Tribunal to fix the rates as far as possible so as to give the railway companies the net revenue of 1913, but there are included in that Section three paragraphs dealing with the different classes of capital expenditure. In Sub-section (1), paragraph (c), of that Section there is
a direction to the Rates Tribunal to include capital expenditure on various works not less than £25,000 in the aggregate, undertaken since 1913, and, as far as I can find out, the proposal in this Bill would fall within that category. Unless we are quite mistaken, it would rank for consideration before the Rates Tribunal in the adjustment of the rates and charges which are fixed from time to time. This is not a party question, but an economic proposition, and I think hon. Members will agree that it is a very important point, because, at the present time, looking to the position of traders and the travelling public and the whole condition of railway service in this country, if we are to make any concessions at all they should be made in the realm of necessary and urgent work. Nobody will suggest that this provision at Gleneagles is of that character. It provides for what is in Scotland, and I am sure elsewhere, a very desirable sport, but it is not entitled to be considered alongside of the very grave needs of traders and the travelling public engaged in the pursuit of the industry and commerce on which the country depends. As far as I can find out there is nothing to prevent this expenditure being ranked by the Caledonian Railway Company—which is part of one of the two great amalgamations touching Scotland—as the condition arising under Section 58 of the Railways Act in the fixing of rates and fares so as to give effect to the requirements of the Act as regards the net revenue of 1913. Up to the present time we have had no information on that point. I am sure whoever speaks on behalf of this promotion will recognise that these are considerations on which the Scottish people and others are entitled to have information. For that reason and particularly because this is undeniably in the nature of luxury expenditure, I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In order to emphasise that this is not a party question, and that Members on both sides of the House will use their own judgment, regardless of party, I rise at once to join issue with my hon. Friends who have moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill. They are not only acting within their rights, but are carrying out a long-established practice in this House, and
one which we must jealously safeguard, namely, availing ourselves of the opportunity given to any opponent of a Bill, to ask Parliament not to confer powers on a company or corporation if it can be shown, entirely apart from the merits of the particular Bill, that that company or corporation has failed to discharge its obligations. Therefore I do not think any supporter of this Bill is entitled to complain about the objections which have been raised, because this is obviously and naturally the opportunity for doing so. I would, however, make two observations on the opposition to the Bill. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that the question of third-class sleepers is not peculiar to the Caledonian Railway Company, and therefore you have indicated that however big a sinner the Caledonian Company may be—as a company—in this respect, it is no worse than the other sinners of railway companies in all parts of the country.
I am prevented from developing the argument in support of my hon. Friend's objection on that point, but it is equally applicable to the case of the week-end tickets. I myself take a very strong view on that subject, and I think one of the things that the railway companies, and especially the Scottish railway companies, should take note of, is the unfair position in which the members of the travelling public are placed with regard to week-end tickets. The obvious disadvantages of the present arrangement will occur to Members of this House when they consider that if the House rose at four o'clock on Friday or even if it rose on Thursday night, yet they would be unable to avail themselves of these week-end tickets unless they remained in London until late on Friday night. That is a matter which I should like to see dealt with in another way. The only point I want to make is that the Caledonian Company could not alter it even if they desired to do so, and that is important to bear in mind. They are only part of a great amalgamation, and even one amalgamation itself could not do it. The whole point turns on whether, even if we defeated this Bill, we, could accomplish the object which we have in view, and it is because it will be obvious to all hon. Members that even the defeat of this Bill could not do that, that I am asking the House not to agree to its rejection.

Mr. MACLEAN: It draws attention to the matter.

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, and that is the advantage of the Debate, that attention has been drawn to it. When we come to the question of luxury travelling, let us examine it free from all cant. A railway company, it is alleged, must not provide a special train for the benefit of golfers. It is suggested that a railway company are going outside their province in either owning a golf course or making special facilities for the benefit of golfers.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am not averse to any railway company running special trains for golfers or football supporters, but I take it as beyond the function of a railway company to acquire and own, at this time, either a golf course or a hotel that is merely to be kept for the use of those who go to the golf course to golf.

Mr. THOMAS: That is somewhat different from my hon. Friend's first argument. I was going to point out this, that a railway company derive their revenue, and the men whom I represent get their wages, from the more traffic that the railway company can carry, and therefore I am not at all going to quarrel with them for providing golf specials or football specials. It was a jolly good thing to get a number of special trains to Wembley last Saturday. They provided revenue for them, and whether it be to a football match, a cricket match, or a golf match, or whether it be revenue for providing for the masses or the classes, makes no difference; they are still discharging their functions as caterers for the travelling public. It might reasonably be argued otherwise, that they have no right to own a hotel. I wonder how many Members of this House really know the kind of business that railway companies, by the very nature of things, are compelled to engage in. It might be argued, I say, that they are not entitled to own a hotel or to come to this House for power to buy a hotel, but they would be able to prove conclusively that it is to their advantage, as a railway company, to do so. My hon. Friend says this is contrary to the Railways Act.

Mr. GRAHAM: No. I made no such statement. I asked the promoter of the Bill, whoever he may be, whether this
is to rank under the Sub-section of the Act which I quoted. It is in no way contrary to the Act.

Mr. THOMAS: The point which my hon. Friend raised is whether that Section of the Act which deals with the rates would be applicable to this, and how it would be argued as coming within its scope for the purpose of charges. I am sure that no promoter of the Bill could answer that. If I were in charge of the Bill, there is only one answer I could give, and it would be this, that it would be inconceivable that the present Rates Tribunal, or any Rates Tribunal, should decide that a particular rate should be put on the remainder of the travelling public, if it was due, and it was shown to be due, exclusively to this particular Act. We have got to apply common sense. We know very well the kind of thing that was argued when the particular Section in question was debated in the House, and we also know the kind of argument that governs the Rates Tribunal, how they are influenced, and how they arrive at their decisions. I put it to my hon. Friend that it is rather stretching his imagination to say that the rates in Scotland are going to be adversely affected, or the Rates Tribunal influenced, by a deficit or otherwise on Gleneagles. I would, however, rather come to the other point. My hon. Friend made a complaint about the Caledonian Company not having given the public the benefit of the reduction in railway fares, but he was unaware, obviously, of the fact that the reduction is an exact pro rata reduction to that which took place in England.

Mr. MACLEAN: Oh, no.

Mr. THOMAS: Do not let it be assumed for a moment that I am arguing that the rates are either low enough or too low. That is not my point, and I do not want to be misunderstood in that in the least, but I am pointing out that, so far as the Caledonian Company are concerned, if they are sinners in this respect, they are sinning not only with all the Scottish companies, but with the English and Welsh companies as well.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Scottish railways have not reduced their fares in any way, because in pre-War times the Scottish travelling public had from the railway
companies a fare of less than 1d. per mile, but since the War, and since the revision of the fares in England, the railway companies in Scotland have kept the fares at the figure to which they were raised when they put on the 50 per cent. and then an additional 25 per cent.

Mr. THOMAS: That is exactly what I was endeavouring to show, namely, that the result to-day is not due to the Caledonian Company alone. There is a general equality for England and Scotland, but the Scottish rates were lower. I have got to take some responsibility for that, of course.

Mr. MACLEAN: And we have got to suffer!

Mr. THOMAS: When I argued before the railway companies that the Scottish railwaymen were entitled to the same conditions as the English railwaymen, obviously I could not put that up to them and also say they must have a lower rate for the Scottish passenger, and the English passenger must not get the benefit. You cannot have it both ways. I am stating the facts, and the facts are that, rightly or wrongly, we went in for standardisation, and, for good or evil, it carried with it the very thing that the hon. Member has mentioned. That cannot be disputed. I would only point out this—I am not going to enter into the question of the Buchanan Street Station, because I want to see a number of stations both in England and Scotland improved. I want to see a large amount of the reserves that were allocated for that purpose used for the purpose for which they were intended, but I want to point out to my hon. Friend—and he knows the fact perfectly well—that the Caledonian Railway went a long way to endeavour to meet the objections to this Bill. He knows that there are several hundreds, I believe nearly a thousand, men at this moment employed at Gleneagles. Is it intended that we should hinder them? There was a dispute there. The Caledonian Railway Company were in no way responsible for that unfortunate dispute. Following a block on this Bill, a satisfactory settlement was arrived at and that grievance was removed. If this Bill is rejected tonight—and I notice my hon. Friend the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) coming in, and I congratulate
him on his success—if this Bill is rejected to-night the fact remains that none of these grievances could be remedied—none of them! The net effect would be an injury and probably the lose of work to a large number already employed. There may be difficulties that ought to be argued out in Committee, and which will be so argued out. But my hon. Friends can understand the deduction I make, when I join issue with them, and propose to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. FALCONER: As a supporter of this Bill, let me say that the general case has been so fairly put by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that it is not necessary for me to cover the ground again. In relation to the speeches of the hon. Members who moved the rejection of the Bill, let me say that the question of the expenditure of capital on this undertaking, so far as Parliament is concerned, is plain. It was authorised in 1913 by Parliament, as expenditure not only in loans, but in the actual construction. The hotel was being built when the work had to be suspended owing to the War. The object of this Measure is to enable the company to complete the building. I do not think anybody can say that it is not in the interests of the railway company and its revenues that this work should be completed, or that its revenues will not be enhanced by completion. That is the whole object of the Bill, and of the Caledonian Railway Company in desiring to carry the work to completion.
To the second place, I should like to say there are no powers to acquire land compulsorily from anyone sought in this Bill. No body or interest can possibly be injured by the carrying out of the works which it is sought to authorise by the Bill. In the third place, in respect to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), he has not correctly interpreted the effect of the Act of 1921 with regard to the result to the public interest of expenditure of this character. If the result of this expenditure is to be to enhance the undertaking which will increase the revenue of the company, and thereby assist the company, or makes it better able to earn a surplus, a percentage of that surplus is going
towards the reduction of the rates. The case, therefore, does not arise which he suggests. The Clause of the Act of 1921 to which he refers is a Clause under which the whole discretion with regard to giving effect to capital expenditure is left to the discretion of the tribunal who are, by statute, to settle the rates from time to time, and it is only so far as they consider it reasonable that any allowance is to be made in respect of capital.
9.0 P.M.
I do not want to enter into a legal argument upon a Clause which probably will come before the tribunal, but it is, I think, perfectly clear that it is only so far as the discretion of the tribunal goes that expenditure, considered to be reasonable, will be allowed to rank as capital expenditure. I agree that it would be a misfortune for the revenue of the company if this work were to be stopped at the moment. I also agree that it would be a misfortune for the workmen, who would be thrown out of employment. I should like to remind hon. Members connected with the Labour party that, in a sense, this is just the kind of thing that I understood they were pleading for last week, when they were asking for provision to be made in times like this for as many people as possible to be employed so as to prevent the increase of unemployment. This is a typical case. This is work that is authorised by Parliament. Can any hon. Members above the Gangway suggest a time at which this work would be more appropriately done than the present? I also, in conclusion, say that I am entirely in accord with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that no possible effect for good can be produced by rejecting this Measure. None of the grievances will be remedied—not one! I do not complain at all of the opportunity being taken to raise the questions that have been raised. I do not take any objection to that at all. If it were a question of having some of the things carried out, probably I should be found voting with them, but I cannot go the length of saying that because there are some things we want, we are not going to pass a Measure to complete the development of this undertaking, when I know perfectly well it would not advance the cause of these other objects to reject the Measure.

Mr. SHINWELL: I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I say that as yet there has been no case made out by the promoters of this Bill. The question which the House has to consider is not one which is complex or in any way confused. It is a simple question which any hon. Member can solve for himself by an understanding of the facts, and the facts are very easily discernable, particularly by those who know something of the local situation. I would submit that one of the most cogent arguments against the acceptance of this Bill has been suggested by my hon. Friend below the Gangway, for he asks—and quite properly—if the Government had undertaken works of this kind, would hon. Members on these benches have opposed such a project.

Mr. FALCONER: I did not say that.

Mr. SHINWELL: I understood the hon. Member to suggest that the Government might undertake work which would involve the employment of a large body of men at present unemployed.

Mr. FALCONER: I do not know whether it is very material to the argument, but my point was that the principle which is being acted upon by the railway company might have been that of the Government, and I did not suggest whether the work was to carried out by the Government or by the company.

Mr. SHINWELL: Then may I submit the point in my own way and suggest that if the Government, in pursuance of its intention to provide work for unemployed men, had suggested a scheme for the employment of unemployed persons which was, in the opinion of this House, unremunerative and unproductive, it would have been strenuously opposed? It is precisely because we believe that this work is of such a character that we offer our opposition on this occasion. The hon. Member below the Gangway has submitted that the revenues of this company would be increased in consequence of the construction of a hotel and golf course at Gleneagles. That shows, if I may say so, an appalling lack of knowledge of the situation at Gleneagles. Gleneagles has been famous in Scotland for some years as a golf course. It attracts a fairly large number of visitors from Glasgow and Edinburgh who, in the main, do not desire to reside at Gleneagles, but who make
haste to return to their native cities immediately the game is over, and the provision of a hotel there will not attract visitors from the surrounding district, though it may induce some of us to go to Scotland for a brief period of rest at Gleneagles. But there are in Scotland a large number of smaller hotels, golf courses and hydropathic establishments, and what has been the fate of those establishments It is well known that at Moffat and I think Peebles and Strathpeffer—certainly at some of these establishments in Scotland—there have been financial difficulties of an acute kind. In the case of Moffat, it cannot be disputed that the famous Moffat. Hydro has passed from one hand to another, and has proceeded on its course until now it is in the hands of a syndicate who do not really know what to do with the place, very largely because of the absence of these desirable Southerners, who, it is alleged, spend all the money they earn in England in the wilds of Scotland. I submit that the facts relating to the existing establishments make it appear as if the establishment of a new hotel at Gleneagles is hardly calculated to be remunerative.
Let me turn to the actual facts of the case as presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). May I submit that his case has not yet been answered? He referred to the station at Buchanan Street. I think he ventured to describe it as somewhat archaic. That is a very mild term to use about Buchanan Street Station, a wooden, tumble-down erection, a terminus associated with one of the most famous railway lines in this country in a main throughfare, a station which has been the subject of very much adverse comment and jocularity in Glasgow for many years. It is true the Caledonian Railway Company are threatening to construct a new station, but their threats have never come to anything tangible, and now they propose to construct a palatial station and hotel at Gleneagles, over 60 miles away in the wilds of the midlands, only for the purpose of enabling tourists to recuperate, when a place like Glasgow demands the construction of a decent station in the heart of the city. Moreover, if the Caledonian Railway Company proposes to expend capital in further enterprise, then we who know something of the needs of
the situation as between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the Midlands of Scotland, might suggest the reconstruction of tie underground railway. To say the least, it is a positive scandal that there should exist in Glasgow at the present time an underground railway with a service by no means consistent with the needs of the community.

Mr. SPEAKER: Is this underground railway under the same company?

Mr. SHINWELL: Yes. I wish to confine myself to the Caledonian Railway Company's works. This Bill, I submit, is not by any means consistent with the needs of the community in Glasgow. Moreover, for many years now—certainly for the last 17 or 18 years, since I have been associated with the trade union movement in Glasgow—we, have been complaining about the workmen's trains which are in the possession of this particular company. We have gone in deputation to the company. We have sometimes, I am afraid, threatened the company, but all to no avail, for they have been adamant, and the condition of workmen's trains on the Caledonian Railway to-day is just as bad as it was 16 or 17 years ago. I sumbit that if this company is to be allowed to sink capital they should remedy the existing state of things. May I submit that the question of the railwaymen's conditions and wages is hardly relative to the question under review. I yield to no man in my desire to maintain the comparatively decent conditions which railwaymen are fortunate enough to have, but I would suggest very respectfully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that railwaymen might be better employed earning wages for useful and productive purposes instead of conveying more or less empty trains in particular railway lines for the benefit of a few wealthy golfers. It will be noted that on this particular line to Gleneagles, both from Glasgow and Edinburgh, there are very few workmen's trains and the special trains are intended to convey the middle-class golfers. Therefore, I submit, that the railwaymen have nothing to gain by being engaged in such an unproductive enterprise.
The case has been argued out by my hon. Friend, and I submit that this House has to consider whether the Caledonian
Railway Company and its associated lines, having a monopoly as it has, is entitled to sink capital in unproductive enterprises. Hon. Gentlemen opposite frequently complain of the proposals which come from these benches with regard to the production of work for unemployed persons and they contend quite wrongly that we wish to spend money on digging holes and filling them up again. We argue quite properly in this instance that the use of capital should be solely devoted to producing something useful and necessary for the community, and I am amazed that hon. Members are thinking of supporting a Bill of this character which will lead to nothing productive or tangible, and will only be the means of providing a few more games of golf for middle-class business men in the cities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, and a few jaded tourists who are seeking relief from their excessive energy in the South of England. I hope this Bill will be considered from the point of view of what is best for the nation.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: It is seldom that I have an opportunity of saying a word in this House, and on this occasion I find myself in that very pleasant position of being entirely in accord with the opinion which has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). In this matter I am in a position of impartiality. I have no shares in this railway company, but I have the advantage of knowing Buchanan Street railway station quite well, and I know equally well Gleneagles golf course and the country round about it. While I sympathise with the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill in many ways, I am not opposed to this Bill. If there were third-class sleepers to Scotland, I would gladly use them, provided that the trains were not so long that they would stretch out to Willesden.
There has been no real fundamental argument against this Bill which would warrant its rejection by the House. What is the main question that determines the case one way or another? It is whether it comes properly within the business of a railway company to make a golf course or not from the point of view of furtherance of its traffic. Anybody who knows the business of a railway company, knows perfectly well that part
of its legitimate business is to make traffic to increase its traffic receipts, and perfectly rightly, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, to give employment to the railway men as well. From this point of view of railway traffic, it is clear that it is a perfectly legitimate and necessary and proper thing, if a company finds its traffic is increased by having an hotel at this, that, or the other town for it to build that hotel. If a railway company thinks that its traffic will be increased by the construction of a golf course, it is perfectly proper for it to make a golf course, and if the company have not such powers it is only right that they should be given the powers required to do this.
The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down gave a long description of how badly the different hydropathic and other establishments have managed their businesses. The test, in the first place, is whether it is a proper thing for the railway companies to do? The House might very well consider whether hon. Members opposite and others know the company's business better than the company's officials as to whether they will make a profit by the adventure or not. If I were asked with whom I would like to trust my money if I had any to invest, I would sooner it was dealt with by the officials of the company than by those hon. Members who have spoken against this Bill. I am a little surprised at what the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) said. I think he questioned the wisdom of the company in spending their capital in this way, but I do not think that any new authorised capital depends on this business and there is no new authorisation of capital under this Bill at all. If any capital is required it has already been authorised but not issued. This part of the case anyhow has really been met very largely by what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said. When all is said and done if it comes to a real increase one way or the other in the capital it would be almost negligible.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: There is no reference to discretion on the part of the Rates Tribunal. There was a definite expenditure undertaken in 1913 and it seems to me that part of this expenditure would rank in that category.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will leave it between the right hon. Gentleman, who is a greater authority than I am on this question, and the hon. Member himself, but I will beg to differ from him on the subject.
Then again the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill made a distinction between investments of money by the company direct in a concern of this kind and investment through a subsidiary Gleneagles Company. I do not think there will be any difference whatever in the financial results. If it did not receive dividends, or had to pay a call, or whatever it was, it would come out of its revenues just as much as would a direct loss by the company itself. When the hon. Member who has just spoken dealt with the question of hydropathic establishments and how they fail and the ill-results from them, I do not think he mentioned Turnberry.

Mr. SHINWELL: I did not.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps he was careful not to mention Turnberry, which I think is one of the courses supported by a railway company.

Mr. SHINWELL: In the case of Turn-berry it is on the main railway line of the Glasgow and South Western Railway, in the vicinity of a very large number of coast towns which attract a large number of visitors. That is entirely different from this case.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: And Gleneagles is on the main railway line between Edinburgh or Glasgow by the Caledonian route and Perth and attracts a large number of visitors to the golf course in summer or to Carsbreck in winter, and no one can say that that sort of venture has an ill-success when a golf course is attached. The main fundamental fact, however, is whether it is a right and proper thing for a railway company to engage in enterprise which can properly increase its traffic. I think the answer clearly is "Yes." The only other specific point is whether the railway company is so foolish in its judgment over this that we as Members of this House ought to protect it against the consequence of its own folly. What would be the judgment of the business community if we were to say to this railway company, "You are engaging in a thing which is undoubtedly going to cause
you a loss, and we really must prevent your doing this in your own interest." They would say that they were much better judges of what was in their interest.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Occasionally, they are not.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Occasionally not; there are always mistakes, but he knows as well as I do that probably on the whole they know their business best, and if they do, on the whole, that is the broad principle by which we should judge. I would be the first to wish that Buchanan Street railway station might be changed. I agree it is not the architectural pride of Glasgow, and I trust that whether it is a joy or not it will not last for ever. At the same time, we are more likely to have it changed and put right if we allow the company to do things which, in their own judgment, will increase and not diminish their profits. I know Gleneagles quite well, and again I join issue with the hon. Member who has just spoken. In principle it is not a question at all of the sort of traffic that is carried on the line, whether a great number of people to a football match or a less number to a golf course. The last time I was at Gleneagles golf course it was not a question of jaded tourists from England or day trippers from Glasgow. I think the hon. Member said "middle-class merchants." What happened was that of the two classes of people I saw there from personal experience one was a wealthy American tourist, and I was perfectly delighted to see him spending his money in Gleneagles. He told me that the one thing that prevented him being anchored to Gleneagles during his holiday was the absence of an hotel built there.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: He could have had an hotel at Auchterarder.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Gentleman does not know it as well as I do. I have stayed there, and it would take some time to get to Gleneagles from there. We should both be content to stay at Auchterarder, but I am talking of the psychology of an American who wants to step out of the hotel door on to the links. On the same day there was a competition of the barbers from Glasgow. There were
either special coaches attached to the train or a special train, and the whole of the links was nearly full that day. I do not know how the Members for Glasgow got their hair cut on that day in Glasgow. Some of them, as an hon. Member suggests, do not shave in Glasgow, I know. Perhaps it may have been the day on which they do not shave. The whole links was full of barbers. A great many of them would have given a good many strokes either to the hon. Gentleman or to me, because some were uncommon good players. It is all very well too to talk of employment on unproductive work. It all turns on what is unproductive work. Surely no healthy amusement is unproductive. No one would want to shut down every cinema because it is unproductive. Amusement of that kind, whether for the barbers of Glasgow or others, cannot be as simply classed as that. When I was there I saw a large number of men employed who were really getting employment which I was told they would not otherwise get, and which stood them in good stead in time of great need. I do not call a good day's amusement in the open air for all classes who can go there on cheap trains unproductive, and on that ground I do not think the argument is valid.
I have no brief for the Caledonian, and I have tried quite impartially to take the case on its merits. I think this well within the business of the railway company, and I think they are best able to judge what will increase their traffic than we who, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Derby, are not railway specialists. Surely it gives a great deal of beautiful open air life in one of the finest parts of Scotland to all classes of the population, and can be made to serve more. For these reasons I hope most heartily that this Bill will pass, and that the House will give it a Second Reading.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I first heard of this Bill by a communication from Perth from some crofters who anticipate difficulties arising on the question of whether or not provisions will be made for them as to removal from quarters where they are now situated. The right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) seems to speak specially for the Caledonian Company directors. That strikes me as rather a peculiar situation from the point
of view that we have found that same right hon. Gentleman specially identified with the recognition of railway directors in the handing over of very substantial sums of money granted by the Government in recognition of their services. I do feel that, not only from the point of view of those who are resident in Glasgow, and are represented by their own Members here to-day, but also from the standpoint of Dundee, this is a favourable opportunity for entering a special protest against the fact that the Caledonian Railway Company have so long ignored the interests of their regular passengers in regard to Buchanan Street Station. It has been a subject of comment for years that so much money has been laid out on this particular place known as Gleneagles Station. It was not, in the ordinary way, a place that the Caledonian Railway might have been expected to fasten upon as particularly likely to attract large bodies of people, and I do not think it has attracted very many. There are numbers who frequent the place, but when you come to study the very beautiful station which they have erected at considerable expense, and its attractions for comparatively a passing few, as compared with the steady demands of the regular travelling public between Dundee and Glasgow, and Perth and Glasgow, you see that for years that same monument to the discredit of the Caledonian Railway Company has stood without any alteration.
Even in the district of Dundee, where the Caledonian is linked up in a joint concern with the Dundee and Arbroath Joint Railway, requests have been made for some facilities for the general body of workers—even a modern sort of platform arrangement, which could be erected at comparatively little expense, to meet the demands of ship workers in that quarter; but we find it frankly put forward to us, on behalf of the company, that it would be a great expense even to give such a reasonable facility. Surely, when we come to face such expenditure as is proceeding in connection with this undertaking at Gleneagles, we are bound to take this opportunity of supporting the right hon. Gentleman who has faced the question and laid these disadvantages under which we labour frankly before the House, and when we find intervening
with very considerable skill and remarkable diplomacy the right hon. Gentleman who tried to balance himself between the right hon. Gentleman at the front of him and the hon. Member behind him as to how he would treat that expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, who specially represents the organised workers on the railways, admits that the management of the companies are sinners. He says it is no use picking out one section and endeavouring to lay upon it the whole onus of responsibility for their sins of commission and omission. You must simply take it as an accepted fact that they are sinners in one complete bunch, and you can do nothing else with them than say, "Amen, so let it be."
To me and, I think, to others outside this House, that is exceedingly interesting, because I daresay many have paid for some years special attention to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby in his handling of many questions which involve difficulties, to say the least of it, between the ownership of the railways and the men to whom he made some special reference this evening. He said that, as the traffic increases, so the men receive the benefit. I shall be glad to hear from any branch of the National Union of Railwaymen in this country that they have found the management of the railways respond in the way the right hon. Gentleman has stated. I do not think so. I feel that it is all the more reason why we should oppose this Bill that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby is acting as its sponser. We have to recognise the fact that the railway companies all along have been an exceedingly difficult agency with which to grapple when we have endeavoured to urge improvements and requirements of the kind which have been indicated from the Front Bench this evening, and I should certainly expect that, logically, anyone in this House who is identified with the working-class movement, and especially the working-class movement associated with the railways, would be with us and for us all the way on a question of this kind.
It has been said that, supposing you do oppose this Measure, you cannot get the things you are speaking about. The right hon. Gentleman referred to moneys having already been allocated for the improvement
of stations, and he himself felt that he would like to see an improvement, not only in Buchanan Street Station, but in other stations in the country. We might have had the advantage of some information as to what steps he has taken to approach the organised owners of the railway companies, and to urge that at least they should make some little departure from the path of wrong-doing, and start on the path of rectitude for once; but that was left a blank. No doubt, when someone else on some other occasion seeks to make the necessary intervention, the right hon. Gentleman will find it feasible to enter in and act on behalf of the management of the railways. As regards the question of unemployment, the work has been going on for years. In fact, I do not suppose that it is very far from actual completion, and it is light and airy talk for anyone, especially from the Liberal Benches, to urge the question of employment when, from the benches on this side of the Gangway, the issues of unemployment have been urged in very special fashion, and particularly on Friday last. It is no use introducing a point of this kind on such an issue as this, because, in reality, what we have to do with is a powerful railway company; and if it be said, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby did say, that they cannot make the necessary exceptions in regard to week-end tickets apart from those with whom they are associated, here at any rate it is within their power to operate separately in regard to the outlay of money for such an undertaking as this, and to carry forward its extension to such a degree that it is expanding over a large part of the territory in that quarter. We do not find any allusion yet to the satisfaction that is required by those whom I mentioned at the outset, namely, the crofters, who are certainly wanting to know how they are to be situated in the carrying through of these arrangements. I certainly feel this is one of those occasions in the House of Commons when we have those powerful agencies in the country that are in the habit of rushing things by the subtle initial method of reaching not simply one side of the House but both sides of the House to gain their purposes, and that is the particular moment for organised labour to pay special attention
to the circumstances which are prevalent in this matter to-night.

Mr. WILLIAM HUTCHISON: It is most interesting to me to observe that the organised opposition above the Gangway have at last undertaken a new class of work, namely, to be so concerned with the profits of railway companies, and to see that the companies do not lose any money. The facts are very simple. In 1913 the Caledonian Railway Company received powers from this House to invest money in this golf course and hotel, which was being built by a small company. During the War this was stopped, and after the War the company could not finance itself, and the Caledonian Railway Company advanced the money for the completion of the hotel and the golf course. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) asked about one station which was going to be built. It must be a long time since he was there, because the station at Gleneagles was completed long ago. Gleneagles is a junction on the main line between Glasgow and Aberdeen. The district is being opened up. If there is one thing that is wanted in country districts, both in Scotland and in England, it is to open up the districts. Apart from the profits which the railway company will get out of the hotel and the golf course, you will have brought to the district other people who will assist the inhabitants, make life more pleasant for them and open up the district, and not only that but there will be the building of houses for the purpose of supplying the needs of people about the hotel. It is work of a productive and not an unproductive nature owing the fact that the Caledonian Railway Company have advanced so much money. It is well within the province of a railway company to carry on such a business. Looking to the situation of the golf course and the hotel, looking to the fact that it is a junction, and that the Caledonian Railway Company are going to carry out this work and complete it, and that it will be productive of good to the district, I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. NICHOL: I feel that the House this evening is within its rights to say in what direction railway development is going to take place. That is the only reason why, throughout the whole of the railway development period during the last century, it was always maintained
by all parties that railways were more than merely private businesses, that they were public utilities under the control of Parliament, and if they required or asked for new development the direction in which these developments should take place remained at the discretion of the Parliament of the day. I feel that this function of Parliament is being exercised to-night, and it seems very curious that, with one or two exceptions, the opinions of the Scottish Members seem to be mainly all on one side. I am not against the golf course at Gleneagles. I have enjoyed being there before, and I hope to be there again, but that is another proposition from the question that we are being asked to face. We are not being asked to finance a golf course, or to allow the railway company to finance a golf course, which is in being, nor to provide moneys for the railway stations—and the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Hutchison) questioned the hon. Member for Linlithgow in saying the station had been built. He inferred that it had been there previously. It is true that there was a station there previously, but when this project was initiated, about 1912, the whole of the station was remodelled, and it is absolutely a new station. With regard to another point raised by an hon. Member opposite, who compared this hotel venture with the experience of another Scottish company in Ayrshire, it came as a surprise to me, because the hon. Member obviously was familiar with golf courses in Scotland.
The characteristic distinction between Turnberry as a commercial venture and an inland course such as Gleneagles is that Turnberry is available for 12 months in the year, and Gleneagles, on account of the climate and the soil, cannot be available for more than four or five months at the outside. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is not very much more than that. Speaking from my personal experience, the traffic at Gleneagles is practically nothing at all during the winter months. I think that point ought to be kept in mind. As to catering for Glasgow barbers, or even for American visitors, I do not think that is the prime function of a railway company. If we are going to exercise any power over the project and the presen Bill at all, it is to tell railway companies generally, and
the Caledonian Railway Company in this particular insance, that first things ought to come first and that there are many others things in their system that are crying out for attention far more than the one they have put forward on this occasion. It has been said that the stoppage of this project would create unemployment. I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), is very familiar with the project, or he would not have claimed that, it is presently engaging over 1,000 workpeople. No one has attempted in the least to put forward a case for the Measure, and those who have casually dropped in as its supporters have made out no case. They have contended that the companies know their own business. I think there is hardly a county in Scotland that is not strewn with the derelicts of railway companies. You actually have this particular company owning a stretch of line, running from Ayrshire into Lanarkshire, over which, during the whole time of its existence, only one train—the train that carried the directors for the opening—has ever passed. No use was ever made of that railway, until some of the rails and the ironwork of some of the bridges were shipped across to France during the War. The same thing is true of many other parts, and when one considers that projects such as this, which are now lying derelict in Scotland, passed not only the general managers of the railway companies in question but also eluded the vigilance of the Opposition in this House at that time, one must confess it is the duty of the Opposition in the present House of Commons—and it is not all on one side of the House to-night—to insist on a proper case being made out for this proposal, such as can stand examination and criticism.
There are things I think which ought to come before this. I do not wish to hark on that outstanding shame, as it has been called, of the so-called Buchanan Street Station, in Glasgow, which is not much better than a set of wooden sheds run together, which get a little whitewash and paint about once in every five years. When one compares that place, for instance, with the beautiful new station that was built at Gleneagles, the question of priority arises immediately. I think there are two points in the Caledonian Railway system far more deserving of
attention than the project they are putting forward in this Bill. One is connected with the underground system owned by the company, and running east and west through Glasgow. That underground system is still in the position in which some of the London undergrounds were about 30 or 40 years ago. It is still run by steam locomotives, and, so far as employment is concerned, a project for the electrification of that part of the underground system owned by the Caledonian Railway Company would provide far more employment than 400 Gleneagles hotels. So far as increasing the traffic is concerned, a re-arrangement, and a going back, even to pre-War conditions in regard to workmen's fares on the same company's system, would provide far more traffic than this project. I am not in favour of this Bill, and I intend to vote against it. It is not that I am against this scheme as a development of railway enterprise. I am against it because I think there are at least 100 other points in the railway system of Scotland that deserve priority of attention before the one we are considering to-night.

Mr. REMER: I would not have attempted to address the House this evening had it not been for the references by some hon. Members opposite to those wicked Southeners who sometimes go north of the Tweed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: You are not a wicked man.

Mr. REMER: As one who has played on very many golf courses in Scotland, and who knows most of the leading golf courses in that, country, I say, without a shadow of hesitation in regard to the observations of an hon. Member opposite, who said that there was no parallel between the golf course at Turnberry and that at Cruden. Bay, which is owned by the Great Northern of Scotland Railway Company, there is an exact parallel between the course at Gleneagles and those two particular courses. I have been to both of them in the month of February, which is a winter month, and one finds these hotels are practically empty at that time of the year. Therefore I think the argument the hon. Member used, that Gleneagles will only be used for four or five months in the year—which I do not
think is correct—is not a very fair one, and cannot be substantiated. That is not the point which I rose to put before the House.
I have spoken to some of the leading golfing professionals on this matter, and every one of them tell me that Gleneagles is the finest course on which they have ever played. I say, without hesitation, that there are literally hundreds of southern golfers, and people from all over the country, who are only waiting for this hotel to be built to flock there, and thus provide considerable revenue for the Caledonian Railway. Therefore I say that this matter is one quite apart from whether it is our business, or the question of the railway directors. It will bring a considerable revenue to the Caledonian Railway, and will provide such a profitable transaction for them that it will produce revenue which will enable the schemes outlined on the benches opposite to be expedited much more quickly than by opposing this Bill.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I intend to go into the Lobby in favour of the Bill. I rather congratulate the last speaker, because if he be going to go to Gleneagles, or up to Scotland, then, so far as his party is concerned, that will be about the only visit to Scotland they will have. My reason for supporting the Bill is because I think that to defeat this scheme now would be foolish in the extreme. If this Bill had been brought before us at a time when the Gleneagles scheme was originally started, and before one penny piece had been expended upon it, I should have gone into the Lobby against the scheme being started at all. I think, originally, it was never a good scheme, nor one on which a railway should enter. My point is that so much capital has now been expended on it; that you have now built a railway station; and that you have expended considerable sums of money in the development of the place, that it would be foolish to stop now, in the midst of the scheme, and so waste the whole of your previous expenditure. That is my main point. I think now it has gone so far that it would be wrong to stop it without full development. For my part, I disagree with my hon. Friends. After all, the golf course is open more than five months of the year. I have watched working people go there
at any time of the year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Working people!"] Yes. Working people, unless there are one or two politicians.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: You do not call them working people.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I was just going to add that when I looked at you. That is no reason why we should stop it. This means that you have 500 or 600 men—I think 1,000 men is an exaggeration—at least 600 men are employed there. If you stop this scheme, those 600 men are going to be dismissed. It may be all very well to tell them that your reason for having them dismissed was that you wanted a new station at Buchanan Street, but that would not find work for the 600 men dismissed. It may be that your reasons are logical in the extreme, but my point for the moment is that to stop this scheme, after all the capital has been expended on it and after development has taken place there, would be foolish and not right at all. May I say I have been challenged for blocking this Bill originally? It is perfectly true I did that, for other reasons. It was because the contract for plumbing work was given to a contractor who refused to carry out the Fair Wages Clause to the men employed. I thought I was entitled, until that was done, to block the Bill. The company have decided to grant these wages and I withdrew the block from the Bill. That is the whole history of my blocking the Bill. It was what I was perfectly entitled to do. Happily, on behalf of certain of my constituents, I succeeded; I usually do. Apart from that, I hope this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division and that the Bill will be allowed to pass.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Among the many extraordinary arguments in support of this Bill I can place as an easy first the argument used by the last speaker. A fortnight ago he was quite prepared to kill this Bill and the company and everybody connected with it, because some plumbers did not get the district rate of wages, but, his plumbers having got the district rate of wages, or having been promised them, the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division (Mr. Buchanan) suddenly becomes aware of the fact that it would be suicidal to stop this Gleneagles experiment because of the extraordinary amount
of capital that has already been sunk in it. That argument did not appear to affect him a fortnight ago, but he has had a miraculous conversion since. A fortnight ago the amount of capital sunk in the Gleneagles experiment did not appear to him to be a very conclusive reason and that, I think, is a miraculous and extraordinary conversion for an experienced politician of his years to make. Another extraordinary reason adduced to-night in support of this Bill was by the hon. Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) who said that the railway companies ought to know their business better than their critics on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Some Members appears to endorse that view. The present state of railway development in this country; the site of Buchanan Street Station; the underground railway in Glasgow belonging to the Caledonian Railway Company; the railway system put down by the directors, which only carried one train except the train that opened the railway; a waste of stations; stations built and never used—the present railway system in Scotland is a standing monument of inefficiency and stupidity and not a testimonial to business acumen or ability on the part of railway directors.
As a matter of fact, there is no department of capitalist enterprise in this country that shows up so badly as our railway system in Scotland. I do not think it is a strong argument in favour of this expenditure at Gleneagles that the wise men who have made such a fool of our railway system in the past should be in favour of the experiment. I call the attention of the House to the fact that the argument used by the mover and chiefly by the Seconder of the rejection of the Bill has not been faced by the supporters of it—the argument that this expenditure can be included in the total expenditure of the company when they go to the Rates Tribunal as a reason why there should not be a reduction of rates. I personally have no objection whatever to the opening of the Gleneagles station and the Caledonian Railway Company taking over the station and running the golf course and hotel, but I do feel they should have run it as a separate business. They should not have been allowed to include this capital expenditure in extraordinary expenditure which
they will be allowed to deduct before there can be a reduction in frieghts or fares. I also object to the Bill for reasons many of which have been adduced by hon. Members on this side. There are many urgent necessary expenditures in the interests of trade, of commerce and of the travelling public, which the Caledonian Railway Company ought to be compelled to undertake before they proceed with their Gleneagles' experiment. The week-end railway fare has been referred to. If you buy your ticket at 4.30 in London you cannot get a week-end ticket, although nineteen-twentieths of the time is spent on the railway during the period that the week-end ticket operates. Yet you get no reduction. Workmen's trains are a scandal and a disgrace. They are like horse boxes. They are ugly, they are dirty, they are foul, and everybody who knows anything about them knows that is true. Buchanan Street railway station is a thing almost unthinkable; it is a scandal. The question is whether the Caledonian Railway Company should be allowed to have a slum station and go in for luxury expenditure elsewhere, when the Buchanan Street station might be replaced by a decent station. For these reasons I trust my hon. Friends will go to a Division, so that we shall, at any rate, record a protest, the best protest we know how to make., against the continuance of this extraordinary state of affairs on one of our leading Scottish railways.

Captain TERRELL: The last speaker has condemned in a wholesale way those who manage Scottish railways. We are led to believe from the words which he uttered that Scottish people are not capable of managing their own railways. My experience of Scotsmen is that whenever they come down South, and certainly in London, they are quite able to look after themselves, and invariably very successful in any enterprise in which they take part. I strongly support this Measure for two main reasons. The first is that it is a very good sign to see that at last railway companies are beginning to wake up and show some degree of enterprise, and in that respect we who live in the South have an example set to us by those who live in Scotland, for it is essential that railway companies in England as well as Scotland should do something to increase their revenues,
because by getting extra trade we shall eventually be able to have further reductions in the freights charged by railway companies which to-day are bearing so heavily on trade and commerce.
There cannot be any harm in the railway companies endeavouring to get some profit out of those who are going to frequent places for pleasure. I have heard one hon. Member say that Gleneagles is frequented only by barbers and such like people from Glasgow. If so, why should not the railway company get some money out of the barbers? I was also glad to hear that they get some money out of the American tourist. That is a very good thing. I would like to see more enterprise shown by railway companies in this country in the direction of catering for any sport so as to get extra revenue. I also support this Bill because I presume it is finding work for some people who otherwise would be out of employment. We have been told by the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that altogether 1,000 people are employed at Gleneagles. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Some hon. Members say only 400 or 500, but even that number is very useful, and if there are 400 or 500 people employed on that site, in preparing the golf course or constructing the hotel or the railway station or on the main line, there must be as many more employed in factories in different parts of the country in making equipment for the hotel, the station and the railway. For these reasons, I support the Measure, and hope that hon. Members opposite will withdraw their opposition.

Captain HAY: In previous Parliaments, owing to the smallness of the party on these benches, we were precluded from intensive criticism of railway companies in general and this railway company in particular. Now the time has come when we have the will and the opportunity to show those companies that, while they have carried things with a high hand in the past, we have now the chance to review their general conduct and put our views before the House. The hon. Member who has just spoken remarked that we seemed to argue that Scottish people were not capable of managing their own railways. The Scottish people would be capable of managing their own railways if they were allowed to do so, but, of course, the
Scottish people do not manage their own railways; the Scottish railways are managed by railway companies, which may represent the Scottish people or may not, but which are first and foremost machines for grinding out dividends. We are opposed to this Bill on many grounds. One of the grounds is a general ground, namely, that the Scottish people wish to mark, as occasion arises, their dissatisfaction with this particular railway company.
I must refer again to the Buchanan Street Station. If the company is sincere in its Bill and in the statement that this expansion at Gleneagles would employ men, I would ask what better means could the company have of employing workmen of all grades than in building a proper station at Buchanan Street? The company is still using an old wooden structure which was erected many years ago. That building must be repainted sometimes. At present it is dangerous and unsightly. Another hon. Member has mentioned that the company's underground railway, which runs across the city from east to west, is not carried on as it might be, and that it is both expensive and dirty. If this company wishes to go in for expansion and improvement, there are all kinds of work waiting to be done. There is a great deal of repainting required both on stations and bridges; there is a great deal of refitting along the line that is needed. There are numberless opportunities for the company to employ men of all trades and all grades. They ought to go ahead with such enterprises before they enter on an expansion which might be good enough after long years of peace, but which at present is quite unnecessary.
We wish to take this chance of putting forward these general criticisms of this particular railway company. We know quite well that it may be some time before we have another chance. I take it that a railway company ought to be primarily a public utility, but this company is a public utility, not primarily, but secondly and thirdly. It has not shown itself anxious to find out the public taste and to meet it. I need not refer again to the workmen's trains, beyond saying that it ought to be impossible and illegal for any railway company to trot out as workmen's trains the old ramshackle wagons
which this company trots out. There is no reason why we should have much feeling or sympathy for the Scottish railway companies in general, or for this one in particular, for we are subject to all kinds of petty tyrannies regarding tickets and return tickets, the validity of return tickets for 12-mile journeys or over, and so one. You are liable to be pounced on by the company at all times, and then you find that the ticket for which you have paid good money is invalid, and that you are called upon to pay again. I think that is a perfectly good point and I wish to make it clear. I remember, after spending about four years in the Army, coming home to my own country, a comparative stranger—I had been abroad for some years prior to entering the Army—and taking a return ticket from one place to another. I used one half of the ticket on the day of purchase, spent a day at this place and proceeded to make the return journey with the return half of the ticket on the third day, only to be told that it was no good. I put it to any reasonable, fair-minded man that I should have been warned on buying the ticket that I must, so to speak, consume the ticket within a fixed time—[Laughter]—I am now speaking about consumption in the economic sense—or, if it is a better way of putting it, I will say consume the service represented by the ticket on the day of purchase and the day following. It was a great hardship and, though I have waited long, now at last I find I have a chance of bringing it forward before the railway companies in general. These are petty tyrannies which may pass very well for a time, but if one waits long enough a chance will come round enabling one to make a protest. I say about this particular railway company, what I might say about any of the railway companies in Scotland, that they are not set up as a public service, but they are set up to grind out dividends, and if, in the process of doing so, the public should be served to some degree, we are, expected to fall down and worship the companies. We refuse to do so, and it is with the greatest pleasure that I stand here to-night to try to incite, if you like, or invite, hon. Members to vote against this particular Bill. By doing so we shall compel the railway companies of this country more and more to take note of the fact that they have been set up to
serve the public and that the public have not been set up to serve them. For these reasons, and many more which I leave to other hon. Members to express, I will have much pleasure in going into the Division Lobby against this Bill.

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I have been in the House a great many years and this is the first time I have had an opportunity of hearing Scotsmen tell the House how miserably they perform those duties and carry out those undertakings which they have under their own control and which they have hitherto managed to their own apparent satisfaction. Now, it would seem, according to the confessions which we have heard to-night, they are really in a very different way from that which they have hitherto claimed to be. I go to Scotland every year and I hope I may be allowed to go many more years.

Mr. SHINWELL: In national costume?

Sir J. HARMOOD-BANNER: I am pleased to see that Scotsmen are going to have a good time, because they are no longer to be left to the control of their own Scottish railway directors, of whom they think so little and complain so much, but they are going to belong to the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. That is very different from the past, when we in this House have been governed by Scotsmen, when we have had them as our Ministers and controllers, when we have had them to exact taxes from us, and latterly when we have had them to dictate to us from the other benches how we ought to behave, by showing us that the louder the voice the better the reason. Now we are going to show them, by putting a little British blood into the Scottish railways, how to play golf, how to conduct their railways, how to give them first-class service, how to give them sleeping cars for all classes, and how properly to do things generally. Previously, it has been the Scotsman above the Englishman, and the Englishman has been a very poor soul, having to bear the brunt of all the Scottish humours and all the Scottish whisky, but we are now going to put it the other way. The London, Midland, and Scottish Railway are going to show the railways how to conduct themselves, and one wonders why those hon. Members who have spoken have not remembered that
we are going to put a little British blood in their veins, and a little British and Welsh generosity. I heard an hon. Member talking about a return ticket. I never knew there were any return tickets in Scotland. My recollection of being up in the North was that a man came into the station and asked for a ticket to London, and when asked "Single or return?" he replied, "Return be damned!" He was not going back to Scotland.
We are discussing a Bill in which the Caledonian Railway is only part of a great system in which you are going to have the benefit of English votes, English principles, and English generosity. The holders of the Caledonian Railway Stock are trying to get the better of the other railways, and to get as much money out of the Britisher as they possibly can, and when everybody else has agreed on the principle of the amalgamation of the various railway companies, the only person who has not agreed is a Scotsman, and many days are now being exploited in order that one Scottish holder of Caledonian Stock may get a bit more money out of the poor, unfortunate Britisher. That is all very well in its way, but I cannot understand why you should object to this Bill, which says we are going to improve you and to show you how you can do things in an enjoyable way. The best part of it is the fact that what you are doing is only part of the fact that you are going to become angels in the future, because instead of being Scotsmen you will have a lot of English and Welsh blood in your veins.

Sir CHARLES BARRIE: After the humorous after-dinner speech to which we have just listened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]—I used the word in the very best sense. It was the humour to which I referred, and not the question of the dinner. After the speech to which we have just listened, I think we might really get back to the real facts of this Bill. The main point of this Debate, I think, is this. It has been suggested by many hon. Members, especially the hon. Gentleman who opened this Debate, that a lot of money was to be spent on the hotel and on the railway station, etc., but the fact has been lost sight of that practically all this money has been spent, and that all the railway company are endeavouring to do is to come into the breach and endeavour to have this project completed.
As long ago as 1913, the Caledonian Railway Company got powers to assist this project, and it was only as a result of the War, the fact that men were taken away to other trades, and the company was unfortunately unable to complete it, that the venture was stopped. The result now is that, owing to financial difficulties, the Caledonian Railway Company have had to take the whole burden of this matter on their backs and complete it. If that were not done, what would the result be? Simply that all the capital spent on this project would be wasted, and surely my Scottish Friends would be the last in the world to see any bawbees thrown about uselessly. I have listened to most of the speeches this evening in connection with this Bill, and I must say from the other side I have heard hardly one speech which has really given effective answer against the Bill. Indeed, I have heard many speeches which have only driven me further to the conclusion that the Bill is one that ought to have the support of the whole House, in order to enable the Caledonian Railway Company to carry out a scheme which is looked upon with favour by most of the people who live in the surrounding district. I myself live within not many miles of Gleneagles, and I can assure the House that not only is this a money-making project for the railway company, but it is one which will tend to enhance the whole of that district, and give quite a lot of employment there.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I rise to oppose this Bill, and I would like to call attention to several cases of lack of facilities, which, I think, the Caledonian Railway Company had much better have supplied before endeavouring to waste money in the wilderness of Perthshire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] After all, Perthshire is as yet a wilderness with a very little economic or social importance compared with the congested and crowded areas of the county of Dumbarton or the county of Lanark. I would suggest that the Caledonian Railway Company would be better advised if, before they expend money at Gleneagles in giving beautiful surroundings and excellent facilities for playing golf, they would pull down and reconstruct on modern lines, with the more recent amenities for domestic life, the blocks which they have provided in
the past for their railway servants in the northern part of the borough of Motherwell. That is a much more necessary thing than to provide for the well-to-do people who proceed from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Gleneagles. They are rarely, I think, seen making their way to Gleneagles. There are in the industrial areas of Scotland, those people who are engaged in producing the wealth that has made Lanarkshire what it is. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Those people who have made Lanarkshire what it is, under private enterprise! After all Lanarkshire is a rich region, though its architectural features need serious attention and remedy. The second thing which I would suggest to the Caledonian Railway Company that they might do would be to widen, in fact to double-track, part of the line which lies between, say, Law Junction and through to Larbert in the one direction, and to Glasgow in the other. The Borough of Motherwell stands at what is probably the most important junction on the Caledonian Railway system. Hereabouts is one congested area which very much needs double tracking, and that would provide very much more labour, and labour from the locality, which would enable those concerned to dispose of more unemployed, and put them on to useful work. That is the second suggestion for a through line and a blue line.
The hon. Member for the Everton Division of Liverpool (Sir J. Harmood-Banner) intervened in this Debate. If I remember correctly, he has for a number of years been associated with Spiers and Pond, who have built not only a number of white elephants in places I have, not visited, but a particularly had elephant in the place where I was brought up—Buxton, which will share with Gleneagles the notoriety involved. That is a useless affair that they are putting up there—the proposed improvement—whereas the improvements they might make in the town which I represent in Parliament would assist in wealth production, and also in the circulation of the commodities produced. Another thing I would like to suggest to them is—and this perhaps would meet with the sympathetic consideration of the director of the Pullman Company—I am speaking of sleeping saloons for third-class passengers—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member was perhaps not present at the beginning of the proceedings, when I ruled that this was a matter affecting, not one company but all, and therefore was not in order.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was going to make a suggestion that the Caledonian Railway Company might lead the way to better things. As that also is, perhaps, out of order, I had better get back and suggest still another improvement. That is that they should try to do something to improve the atmosphere in the low level station at the Central Station, Gasgow. That is one of the most appalling places into which anyone could be precipitated. Its facilities for bringing in and taking out passengers are of exactly the opposite standard of civilisation to that which due notices in the top part of that station which is one of the finest stations, with one or two reservations, to be found in the country. I remember when I first went to Scotland that I noticed on the Caledonian Railway that no seats were provided for the old people whilst waiting for the trains. I would suggest that on the high level seating accommodation must be provided for invalids and old people. When we come to the station at the top end of what is generally considered to be one of the finest and most handsome streets in the British Isles we find what is scarcely a fitting conclusion to that feast of architectural glory which one has seen in making one's way from St. Enoch to Buchanan Street, because there is still to be found a timber structure which has been there from 1847 to the present day and it is time it was rebuilt.
Another station, which is one of the gloomiest in the country, is the station at Perth. Perth needs bringing into line with Carstairs, Wemyss Bay, and Aberdeen, and it is a much more necessary thing to bring Perthshire into line with the rest of the country than to be running up hotels and providing golf courses at Gleneagles. There are other improvements that might be made in various directions. For instance, the Caledonian Railway Company is, I believe, partly responsible for the maintenance of the bridge which runs out of Carlisle Station
northwards, and which is one of the most atrocious bottle-necks to be found on any railway line in the country, and I think that is a place where they might very well provide additional facilities.
Then there is another stretch of line for which this railway company is partly responsible, to which they have shunted some of the carriages which must have been on the very earliest line from Garnkirk to Kirkintilloch. It is part of the Caledonian system, and antedates the line running between Manchester and Liverpool. I suggest to the Caledonian Railway Company that before they spend money on Gleneagles, they should spend a certain amount in assisting their colleagues of the Glasgow, Barhead, and Kilmarnock joint service in providing modern carriages on that part of the line that runs down from Lugton to Beith. There is probably no place in Ireland where such archaic rolling stock survives as that which is being used between Lugton and Beith. I have travelled on many railway lines this year in Europe and I have not seen—no, not even in Russia after many years of war—anything that is so backward as some of the rolling-stock provided by the Caledonian Railway Company. Therefore, I would suggest that we should give to the Caledonian Railway Company tonight a lesson which would teach them for the future that before they provide facilities for those people who are not usually employed on useful work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] I expected that some hon. Members opposite would say "Question!" One can scarcely expect them to do otherwise, but I would suggest that it is much more necessary to provide good housing accommodation for the railwaymen in Motherwell than weekend accommodation for railway shareholders and directors at Gleneagles. Those are the main reasons which I desire to state upon this occasion. If the Bill should by any chance proceed further, then some of us who represent Scottish constituencies will have a great deal to say upon these matters at a later stage.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 40.

Division No. 121.]
AYES.
[7.46 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Barnston, Major Harry
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Brass, Captain W.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Becker, Harry
Brassey, Sir Leonard


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Briggs, Harold


Apsley, Lord
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Bruford, R.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Berry, Sir George
Buckingham, Sir H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Betterton, Henry B.
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew


Banks, Mitchell
Blundell, F. N.
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Bonwick, A.
Butcher, Sir John George


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Remer, J. R.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hillary, A. E.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Clayton, G. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hood, Sir Joseph
Robertson-Despencer, Major (lsl'gt'n W)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Houfton, John Plowright
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Cope, Major William
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Hurd, Percy A.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sandon, Lord


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Shipwright, Captain D.


Daizlel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Darblshire, C. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Simpson, J. Hope


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sinclair, Sir A.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Singleton, J. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Skelton, A. N.


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Linfield, F. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Edmonds, G.
Lorimer, H. D.
Sparkes, H. W.


Ednam, Viscount
Lougher, L.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Ellis, R. G.
Lumley, L. R.
Stanley, Lord


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Manville, Edward
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Falconer, J.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Foot, Isaac
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Merger, Colonel H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Furness, G. J.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Tubbs, S. W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wallace, Captain E.


Gates, Percy
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Waring, Major Walter


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Murchison, C. K.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wells, S. R.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Nall, Major Joseph
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Whitla, Sir William


Grigg, Sir Edward
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Guthrie, Thomas Mauie
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Winterton, Earl


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Paget, T. G.
Wise, Frederick


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Halstead, Major D.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Perring, William George
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Peto, Basil E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hancock, John George
Phillipps, Vivian
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pielou, D. P.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Harbord, Arthur
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Harris, Percy A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton



Harvey, Major S. E.
Price, E. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hawke, John Anthony
Pringle, W. M. R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Privett, F. J.
Gibbs.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Raine, W



NOES.


Adams, D.
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cairns, John
Duncan, C.


Buchanan, G.
Cape, Thomas
Gosling, Harry


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
M'Entee, V. L.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Greenall, T.
McLaren, Andrew
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Thornton, M.


Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Morrison, R, C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Hayday, Arthur
Muir, John W.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Nichol, Robert
Weir, L. M.


Irving, Dan
O'Grady, Captain James
Wheatley, J.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Royce, William Stapleton
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, Emanuel
Wright, W.


Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simpson, J. Hope



Leach, W.
Snell, Harry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lowth, T.
Snowden, Philip
Mr. Newbold and Mr. Barker.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 122.]
AYES.
[10.54 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Harbord, Arthur
Pielou, D. P.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Hawke, John Anthony
Price, E. G.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Rae, Sir Henry N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Raine, W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hennessy, Major J. H. G.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hinds, John
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'nW)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rose, Frank H.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hopkins, John W. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Berry, Sir George
Houfton, John Plowright
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Betterton, Henry B.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dtworth, Putney)


Blundell, F. N.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Bonwick, A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Simpson-Hinchcliffe, W. A.


Brass, Captain W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Singleton, J. E.


Bruford, R.
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Skelton, A. N.


Buchanan, G.
Jephcott, A. R.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Lord


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Clarry, Reginald George
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clayton, G. C.
Leach, W.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lougher, L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tubbs, S. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Waring, Major Walter


Edmonds, G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wells, S. R.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Millar, J. D.
Whitla, Sir William


Foot, Isaac
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Leslie O. (P'tsm'th, S.)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wintringham, Margaret


Furness, G. J.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wise, Frederick


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Halstead, Major D.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Mr. Falconer and Mr. W.


Hancock, John George
Perring, William George
Hutchison.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Phillipps, Vivian





NOES.


Adams, D.
Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Sexton, James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Brotherton, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Chapple, W. A.
Lansbury, George
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Duncan, C.
McLaren, Andrew



Ede, James Chuter
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gosling, Harry
Newbold, J. T. W.
Mr. Neil Maclean and Mr.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Nichol, Robert
Johnston.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
O'Grady, Captain James

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — BETTING DUTY.

SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of imposing a duty
on betting, and to report whether such a duty is desirable and practicable.

Ordered, "That the Committee do consist of Nineteen Members."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Sir Leonard Brassey, Sir Alfred Butt, Mr. Cautley, Mr. Foot, Mr. Forestier- 
Walker, Mr. William Graham, Mr. David Grenfell, Major Sir George Hamilton, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Lyle-Samuel, Sir Henry Norman, Mr. Rawlinson, Sir Beddoe Rees, Mr. Rentoul, Sir Berkeley Sheffield, Lord Stanley, Mr. Gershom Stewart, and Mr. Cecil Wilson nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Nine be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMALS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Sir A. Shirley Benn.]

Mr. LANSBURY: This Bill has been opposed for several nights in succession, but to-night the parties concerned, on behalf of the Jewish fraternity in the country, have agreed to the insertion of a Clause which will safeguard all their interests, and they are perfectly satisfied. I hope, under these circumstances, the Bill will not be further opposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — TRAWLING (SCOTLAND).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Mr. MACPHERSON: I make no apology for raising the question of trawling, legal and illegal, around Scotland on the Adjournment to-night. I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health notice that I would raise this matter, in view of the unsatisfactory answer which my colleagues and I have received to various questions which we put to him in connection with that subject. My hon. and gallant Friend told me, when I along with my colleagues, pressed him for an
inquiry into the whole subject in Scotland, that if I presented an aspect of the case to him, he would consider the matter. I think the House will agree with me that my colleagues from Scotland and myself have presented many aspects of the case to him, and that, so far, we have had no satisfaction of any sort or kind. When I raise the whole question of trawling in Scotland, let me make it perfectly clear that I have nothing to say against the Fishery Board, or the Chairman of the Fishery Board, in Scotland. I believe that the Board, instead of being, as it was for many years, a fossilised Department, is now a real, live Department. I am very glad to pay my personal tribute to the present Chairman of that Board, who is sincerely anxious to help the whole of the fishing industry in Scotland.
I am not going to deal to-night with the difficult and thorny subject of the strike in Aberdeen, in connection with the landing of the foreign fish by foreign trawlers in that city. I am going to deal, however, with one or two other aspects of the subject. I am dealing, first of all, with the lack of proper policing around the coast of Scotland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And elsewhere.

Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. and gallant Friend says "elsewhere." That may be so, but at the present moment we are concerned with the unsatisfactory nature of the policing round the coast of Scotland. I have received complaints, as a Member for the North of Scotland, and so have all my colleagues, that, on the West Coast, on the North Coast, and on the East Coast, illegal trawling takes place, not only on the lawful days of the week, but, what is particularly obnoxious to the people in the North of Scotland, on Sundays also. My hon. and gallant Friend admitted the other day that foreign trawlers even come into certain parts of the bays and waters off the coast of Scotland. I have reason to believe—I will say that of my hon. and gallant Friend, I hope it has been the result of our questions in this House—that an attempt has been made in certain pares of Scotland to improve the policing. What are the facts? These trawlers come into the bays during the night. They have
no lights. They are only identified by the noise of the engines; and the fishermen, who are entirely dependent upon their lines and their nets, and the use of those, in those bays and inland waters, are seeing their livelihood wholly ruined. The spawning beds are ruined all round the coast. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, we cannot afford, in Scotland, nor can the Empire afford, to lose—and those men are being driven away from their homes—that breed of manhood. Why? For the simple reason that during the War they performed deeds of extraordinary valour. Now they have the insult thrust upon them, that the very men who were laying mines in German trawlers against our sailors and our fishermen are being allowed to come into the Moray Firth—that is my next point—while they themselves are not allowed to trawl within the precincts of the Moray Firth, as are the foreign trawlers.
My hon. and gallant Friend told us yesterday that the police force of cruisers identified, on the average, two foreign trawlers per month. When he admits that, we may take it for granted that far more foreign trawlers come in than those two which he is willing to admit. A colleague of mine in this House has seen foreign trawlers busy on a summer evening in the Moray Firth. I pressed my hon. and gallant Friend, and so did some of my colleagues, to get his Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland to secure a review of the North Sea Convention. It is a very extraordinary fact that a Soviet trawler, a German trawler, a French trawler, a Belgian trawler, and a Norwegian trawler can come with the line from Duncansby Head to Rattray Point, and yet an Aberdeen or Hull trawler is not allowed to come within the area.
That is an intolerable situation. I am not arguing that any trawler should go in there. It may well be that a case can be made out for the line net fishermen by those who would desire to see that industry preserved and to see the livelihood of the fishermen preserved in the fishing villages, but that is not the point: what we are strongly opposed to is that when any trawler is to come inside the line between Duncansby Head and Ilattray Point it is only to be a foreign trawler, and that the fishermen have to see their livelihood taken away from them by foreign trawlers coming within
that line and destroying the spawning beds. I pressed my hon. and gallant Friend to get a review of the North Sea Convention. The famous case dealing with this point, decided by the most distinguished of Scottish Judges—Lord Dunedin—laid down that the Statute law of the realm is that no trawler is allowed to trawl within three miles of the coast—no British trawler—and yet foreign trawlers are allowed to come within the line of the Moray Firth.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): Surely my right hon. Friend is not contending that these fishermen are allowed to trawl within that limit?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am contending that within the line of the Moray Firth the foreign trawler can trawl—not within the 3-mile limit—but no British trawler can trawl. That is our point, and that is really the gravamen of our charge. I ask the House to picture to themselves the feelings of those gallant fishermen who are compelled to witness men who were their enemies, doing to death their kinsmen less than four years ago, having a privilege they are precluded from enjoying in their own waters. My hon. Friend is content to say when we press him about the landing of fish at Aberdeen, "These fish are caught in Icelandic waters." That is always the case put up in the police court at Aberdeen by the German trawler. The story of the gallant fishermen on the East Coast is not listened to. Bureaucracy will not listen to these fishermen. They prefer to listen to the story of the man on his defence in the police court. I prefer to believe the word of the fisherman on the East Coast before that of the owner of a German trawler. If it is contended in this House that the fish dumped down in Aberdeen are fish from Icelandic waters, that may be true with regard to probably 75 per cent. of the fish so dumped, but the fact remains that time after time fishermen on the East Coast have told me that these trawlers catch fish before their eyes and dump them down to compete with them in the Aberdeen market.
I ask my hon. and gallant Friend, before this matter goes much further, to consent to the reasonable request that I make. I ask him to appoint a small committee to inquire into the whole question.
I have been an administrator in Government Departments myself, and I know the great value that the assistance of competent, unbiased men to an administrator in any Department. He cannot be unaware of the fact that this question of trawling is a serious question in Scotland. From south, north, east and west he has been pressed with questions. He is aware that at present one of the gravest of all disputes is taking place in Aberdeen. I am not dealing with that at present, because I realise that another department is concerned, but it is a point germane to the point which I am making. I am asking him to appoint a Committee of Inquiry. He can inquire whether the policing of the coast is effective. He can inquire about the feeling with regard to the Moray Firth and the feeling with regard to the dumping of fish. He can find out whether in any way he can restore confidence once again to the finest of all populations in Scotland, the finest fishing population on the coast of Scotland. I ask him, I believe with the support of all right thinking men in this House, now that the matter is fresh in his mind and while it is a live matter, to give his consent to the appointment of this Committee of Inquiry.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: I support the appeal of my right hon. Friend. I have repeatedly attempted to have illegal trawling on the west coast of Scotland put down, but I have always been met with the reply that the provision of an extra vessel to patrol the coast is out of the question at present in view of financial circumstances. In other words, only one boat, a small, inefficient boat, controls the fishing on the west coast of Scotland at present. Since receiving that letter in January, I have been told, in reply to questions in this House, that all possible attention is being paid to these matters consistently with the requirements of other districts and with the means at the disposal of the Fishery Board of Scotland. These are wholly inadequate for the purpose. A gentleman who has no connection with fishing writes me:
At various rent collections I had in this district within the past two weeks I received bitter complaints from people regarding damage done by trawling on the inshore fishing grounds. The practice has become so bad that many families mainly dependent on inshore fishing for sale locally are at
present practically deprived of their livelihood.
A clergyman writes me:
The enclosed resolutions will give you an idea of my reason for writing you at present. Sheer force of circumstances has compelled me to take the action which the resolutions indicate, that the people are faced with starvation unless something is done without any further delay.
Another clergyman writes in the same train:
I wish you could get the powers-that-be to realise that, unless the Government are prepared to enforce the laws of the Realm in this connection, the end of the business will be an outbreak of lawlessness on the part of the long-suffering islanders.
There are many other letters from which I could read extracts, but I think I have read sufficient to show that on the West Coast it is necessary to have additional means of putting down illegal trawling, and I hope that the Government will agree to the committee which has been recommended.

Captain ELLIOT: There have been two main points raised—the question of the specific cases of hardship inflicted upon the trawling industry by the closing of certain specified areas of our shores, and the general question of the insufficient policing of the waters of Great Britain. My time is very limited, but the argument I have to meet is undoubtedly a very serious one indeed. I will deal first of all with the general case as to the insufficiency of the policing of the waters around Great Britain. We must admit that nothing can be more infuriating to the fishermen of these islands than to see contraventions of the law taking place, either by fishermen from foreign countries or by poachers of their own nationality. But I should like the House to appreciate the extraordinary seriousness of the position which has arisen with regard to the expense of carrying out this police work. It is not generally recognised that, in this matter of policing of the fishery vessels, the Fishery Board is living on its capital. Funds are rapidly becoming exhausted, and in the year 1924–25 we shall have to face the question, not of extending the policing of these waters, but of the complete exhaustion of the funds from which the present policing is maintained. Before the War the £15,000, with miscellaneous receipts, sufficed for the maintenance
of the cruisers, but since the War, in 1920–21, the cost was £47,000, in 1921–22 it was £39,000, and in 1922–23 it was £30,000. What is the effect upon a revenue of £15,000 of maintaining a service which is costing 230,000?
I merely wish the House to realise that, with the funds at our disposal, we are certainly carrying out the utmost efforts in that direction and that further efforts in the matter of policing will inevitably demand the vote of a considerable sum by this House.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not the custom of every decent Government to maintain the law?

Captain ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, but I must give one or two figures. The sum available for the maintenance of five fishery cruisers is an annual sum of £15,000 from the Local Taxation Account of Scotland and certain miscellaneous receipts, to which are added reserves accumulated out of the annual sum of £15,000, to a small extent before the War and to a larger extent during the War, when the cruisers formed a charge on the Admiralty.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Am I to understand that this is purely a question of finance: and that the Scottish Office say that they are not able because of their finance to police these coasts, and to prevent illegalities: is that the answer?

Captain ELLIOT: That is not the answer. There are two points involved in this. The question of finance is one which we have to take into account in meeting the contention that more should be done. We have already gone so far as to spend more than double our revenue in maintaining these services. I wish the House to take account of that main fact.

Sir M. MACDONALD: Does that mean that double the service is being done?

Captain ELLIOT: No; it means that the expense of maintaining the ships is double what it was in pre-War times. It is, I admit, the same service.

Sir M. MACDONALD: Is not everything double?

Captain ELLIOT: There is a very short time in which to deal with the extremely important point raised by the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, namely, the question of the grievance suffered by the fishermen of Great Britain in the closing of certain areas to British fishermen, which it is admitted are still possible for boats from other countries to fish in. This point is not merely one of our own legislation, because, as is admitted on all sides, we cannot enforce our prohibition without agreement on the point by neighbouring States. We have done our best to bring about this agreement, and, as a matter of fact, the subject is at present under consideration by the scientific body for controlling the whole question of fishing stocks in the North Sea. If it is to be enforced, such an agreement will be met by reciprocal concession on our part regarding the trawling of our nationals in the off-shore waters of other countries. We could not prevent the fishermen from other countries from fishing outside the three-mile limit off our shores, but we could see that if they did contravene our law they should not be allowed to land any of the fish captured, and this has been enforced. It is claimed by the right hon. Gentleman that the number of complaints has been far greater than the number of detections. During the four months from the 1st January to the 30th April, the number of complaints, both specific and general, all round these Islands, was 35; 26 detections have taken place, and in 17 cases convictions have resulted. The number of complaints does not bear the extraordinary disproportion to the number of convictions which one would be inclined to suppose.
On the subject of an inquiry, let us remember that we hazard a great deal, especially the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, because when we begin on an inquiry the result of it may be that we do the only thing which we can do by legislation, namely, open the Moray Firth to trawlers from all parts, both British and foreign trawlers, put the British trawlers on the basis of equality with the foreign trawlers, and thereby bring about the situation that the British trawlers will go in and sweep the Moray Firth from end to end, a thing we are desirous of preventing. In the matter of the inquiry, I am personally disposed to regard it most sympathetically, and shall certainly
bring before my Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland the very strong case which has been put forward this evening. I cannot, of course, promise that a Committee will be granted because that is not in my power, but I consider that a Committee of inquiry would enable us to investigate these allegations which have been made, but I ask my right hon. Friend to remember, when he presses this point, the tremendous risk which is run by the result being the opening of the Moray
Firth, and a situation brought about which we are all anxious to avoid, namely, the sweeping of these spawning beds clean from end to end, and the resultant ruining of the line fishermen of these parts.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.